3 ms·
Science classes should be reserved for teaching scientific things. I think you, I and Krauss would all agree on that much. I wish it were uncontroversial, but
by robonerd 5y ago
Science classes should be reserved for teaching scientific things. I think you, I and Krauss would all agree on that much. I wish it were uncontroversial, but evidently it isn't.
However Krauss seems to goes further. If knowledge is asserted to only come from scientific means, and if the purpose of schooling is to impart knowledge, that seems to leave little room for classes which don't purport to be science classes in the first place.
You could presumably make room for these classes through twisted logic along the lines of "Actually English Literature is science because we're making empirical observations about the words written on this paper...", but I don't think there is much real utility in this line of reasoning. It's much simpler to simply accept there are some subjects that have value yet aren't science.
- cycomanic 5y agoI think you are taking a very narrow interpretation of what Krauss is saying. Nowhere in his essay does he talk about that we should not be teaching religion, art, music, literature and that they don't have value. Remember that he is replying to an initiative to bring Maori perspectives (mysticism) into science classes as an equally valid system to explain the physical world, to which he answers the only valid way of explaining the physical world is the scientific process.
- robonerd 5y agoAs I said, I agree with most of what Krauss said. I object mainly to his assertion that empirical knowledge is the only kind of knowledge. Whether you restrict the scope of consideration to physical phenomena or not, he's going too far with that assertion.