Topic II. A Common Shared Reality and Scientific Advancement
Filtering on
Context for this filter:
-
LEARNING GOALS
- B. CONCEPT ACQUISITION
- Empirical Evidence
-
EXAMPLES
- Cautionary Quotes: Mistakes, Misconceptions, & Misunderstandings
- “Well, I just happen to think that if you punish people whenever they misread a word they will learn to read much faster—and most people agree with me. So...”
- "Science is just another religion, no better and no worse than any other. They use textbooks as their scripture, and scientists are their priests. You should choose whichever authority feels most right to you or stick with the authority you were raised with, because there's no other way to choose between them."
LEARNING GOALS
- B. CONCEPT ACQUISITION
- Empirical Evidence
- Science is based on appeal to empirical evidence, which is publicly accessible on the assumption of reality (although may require special instruments and/or expertise to acquire).
- C. CONCEPT APPLICATION
- Distinguish concept validity from (1) a social-constructivist picture of scientific concepts free-floating in a world of mutual agreement among power brokers, not moored to a universally shared reality, and (2) subjective preferences.
- a. Identify cases where concept validity is expected
- e.g. What is a quark/electron/boson? What is an animal?
- b. Identify cases where social constructivism might be a good approach
- e.g. What is her name? What is the name of this city?
- c. Identify cases where preference might be sufficient
- Which chocolate is tastiest? Which color palette is prettiest?
- Use the concept of validity to assess scientific claims, contrasting cases where the validity of the concept is on stronger vs. weaker footing.
- a. In straightforward cases
- e.g. Everyone or nearly everyone can agree about which animals are cats, and consequently agree that most cats have fur, etc.
- b. In less straightforward cases
- e.g. Claims about bosons, dark energy, what sort of black hole is at the center of the Milky Way
- c. In difficult cases
- e.g. Disagreement is rife over what intelligence is, so claims about the relative intelligence of two groups of people are more questionable.