Science, Worldviews, and Education

Whether science can reach conclusions with substantial worldview import, such as whether supernatural beings exist or the universe is purposeful, is a significant but unsettled aspect of science. For instance, various scientists, philosophers, and educators have explored the implications of science for a theistic worldview, with opinions spanning the spectrum from positive to neutral to negative. To delineate a mainstream perspective on science, seven key characterizations or “pillars” of science are adopted from position papers from the world’s largest scientific organization, the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Based on those pillars and an examination of scientific method, I argue that the presuppositions and reasoning of science can and should be worldview independent, but empirical and public evidence from the sciences and humanities can support conclusions that are worldview distinctive. I also critique several problematic perspectives: asserting that science can say nothing about worldviews and the opposite extreme of insisting that science decisively supports one particular worldview; weakening science so severely that it lacks truth claims; and burdening science with unnecessary presuppositions. Worldview-distinctive conclusions based on empirical evidence are suitable for individual convictions and public discussions, but not for institutional endorsements and scientific literacy requirements.     

Can Science Test Supernatural Worldviews?

Several prominent scientists, philosophers, and scientific institutions have argued that science cannot test supernatural worldviews on the grounds that (1) science presupposes a naturalistic worldview (Naturalism) or that (2) claims involving supernatural phenomena are inherently beyond the scope of scientific investigation. The present paper argues that these assumptions are questionable and that indeed science can test supernatural claims. While scientific evidence may ultimately support a naturalistic worldview, science does not presuppose Naturalism as an a priori commitment, and supernatural claims are amenable to scientific evaluation. This conclusion challenges the rationale behind a recent judicial ruling in the United States concerning the teaching of “Intelligent Design” in public schools as an alternative to evolution and the official statements of two major scientific institutions that exert a substantial influence on science educational policies in the United States. Given that science does have implications concerning the probable truth of supernatural worldviews, claims should not be excluded a priori from science education simply because they might be characterized as supernatural, paranormal, or religious. Rather, claims should be excluded from science education when the evidence does not support them, regardless of whether they are designated as ‘natural’ or ‘supernatural’.     

Imagining the World: The Significance of Religious Worldviews for Science Education

This article begins by examining whether ‘science’ and ‘religion’ can better be seen as distinct or related worldviews, focusing particularly on scientific and religious understandings of biodiversity. I then explore how people can see the natural world, depending on their worldview, by looking at two contrasting treatments of penguin behaviour, namely that provided in the film March of the Penguins and in the children’s book And Tango Makes Three. I end by drawing some initial conclusions as to what might and what might not be included about religion in school science lessons. Science educators and teachers need to take account of religious worldviews if some students are better to understand the compass of scientific thinking and some of science’s key conclusions. It is perfectly possible for a science teacher to be respectful of the worldviews that students occupy, even if these are scientifically limited, while clearly and non-apologetically helping them to understand the scientific worldview on a particular issue.     

Empirical research: Challenges and impulses for Islamic religious education

ABSTRACT

The following article describes how empirical research can give new impulses to Islamic religious education. These impulses could lead to a reconciliation of the Islamic religious heritage with the fast-changing reality of Muslims in non-Muslim countries and societies. Due to the presence of Muslim children in public schools and the urgent question of their religious education, as an academic discipline, Islamic religious pedagogy (Islamische Religionspädagogik) has acquired a pioneering role among the various Islamic theological disciplines. On a scientific level, it has already taken its first steps in the scientific landscape in Germany and Austria and has established diverse references to modern science. Islamic religious pedagogy, as a young scientific discipline, necessarily requires empirical research to provide sound foundations for the quality of Islamic religious education and for a better understanding of religious educational processes. This calls for a dialogue between empirical educational research and theology and cannot be achieved based on purely theoretical assumptions.     

The Merits of Using “Worldview” in Religious Education

This article aims to argue that worldview is a useful concept in religious education because of its encompassing character. In the first part of the article three essential characteristics of “worldview” are distinguished: “worldview” includes religious and secular views; a distinction between organized and personal worldviews should be made; and existential questions are a necessary part of “worldview.” The second part of the article demonstrates how two articles about Grimmitt's distinction between learning about and from religion benefit from using “worldview” and how the authors can address their points more clearly by using the concept and its three essential characteristics.     

Contemporary Science and Worldview-Making

This paper discusses the impact of contemporary scientific knowledge on worldviews. The first three sections provide epistemological background for the arguments that follow. Sections 2 and 3 discuss the reliable part of science, specifically the characterization, scope and limits of the present scientific canon. Section 4 deals with the mode of thinking responsible for both the canon’s credibility and its power to guide speculative activity. With these preliminaries in place, the remainder of the paper addresses the issue of tolerance to “alternative perspectives”. The analyses in this part focus on the extent to which mature scientific thought embodies open-mindedness, with pluralism and competition between perspectives as central themes. I argue for four related claims, concerning scientific literacy, the impact of the canon on rational speculation, the limits of scientific pluralism, and the popular idea that recent forms of “scientific (natural) theology” have rational merit and can help worldview-making in our age, respectively: (C1) Which theories and narratives (or parts of them) belong in the scientific canon, and whether they are worldview independent, are matters contingent upon the state of knowledge—not something one can convincingly determine on metascientific or transcendental insight. (C2) The current scientific canon and its associated methodology provide research with strong directionality, often against popular currents. (C3) Current science does marginalize some views dear to many people. (C4) Although natural theology “officially” purports to embody scientific methodology, all it presently has on offer are poorly thought out ventures embodying (at best) only relaxed versions of that methodology; if so, the relationship between current projects in natural theology and science cannot (without begging the question) be reasonably described as one of “partial overlap”, “mutual modification”, or “ongoing complementarity”.     

The Interplay of Scientific Activity, Worldviews and Value Outlooks

Scientific activity tends to reflect particular worldviews and their associated value outlooks; and scientific results sometimes have implications for worldviews and the presuppositions of value outlooks. Even so, scientific activity per se neither presupposes nor provides sound rational grounds to accept any worldview or value outlook. Moreover, in virtue of reflecting a suitable variety of worldviews and value outlooks, perhaps including some religious ones, science is better able to further its aim. An extended argument is made that, although the materialist worldview has de facto been widely associated with the development of modern science, the scope of scientific inquiry is improperly limited when constraints, derived from materialism, are generally placed upon admissible scientific theories. Some implications for science education are sketched in the conclusion.     

HAVING FAITH IN OUR FAITH IN GOD: TOWARD A CRITICAL REALIST EPISTEMOLOGY FOR CHRISTIAN EDUCATION

The postmodern era poses significant challenges to Christian faith in God. For many, a subterranean question lies just beneath their tenuous faith: "Is there an objective reality upon which faith in God is based?" This essay argues that, in addition to other important factors, a dominant worldview or epistemology within postmodern culture conceals the multidimensional nature of reality and discredits religious faith. Critical realism is introduced as an epistemological framework of both science and theology in which Christian faith makes sense. Significant implications are drawn for teaching and learning and pastoral ministry in Christian congregations.     

Dimensions of evidence,the public understanding of science and science education

This paper explores the nature and type of evidence employed by participants in an issue of public concern. By examining documents and interviewing members of the public involved in the debate, the way in which evidence was used in the arguments for and against the issue was determined. Three dimensions of evidence emerged from the data: formal scientific evidence based on the data; informal evidence (e.g. common sense, personal experience) and wider issues which impinge on the evidence (e.g. environmental or legal concerns). In this particular controversy, it was the questioning of the formal evidence by local scientists which became the 'magic bullet' but pertinent questioning by local nonscientists also framed the debate. The authors suggest that school science curricula should include practice in questioning and manipulating different sorts of real data in a variety of ways so that pupils are equipped and empowered to tackle contemporary issues of this kind.     

申论马克思主义哲学、科学和世界观

马克思主义哲学是科学,因为哲学属于人文科学,是现代科学的一部分。科学是一种理性的、全方位的世界观、认识论和方法论,其中包含哲学,但不局限于哲学。人类除了科学之外,还有许多其他世界观。当代文明的世界观是一个丰富的、多层次的体系。从文化性质上看,马克思主义是意识形态而不是科学。科学研究者会有其信仰,但不必言用其信仰指导科学研究。在人类的文明体系中,科学和意识形态的文化性质不同,因而可说它们是人类不同的世界观。     

Worldviews and their relation to science

Worldviews are not only about whether God exists or whether the world has a purpose. They can contain a lot more, or they can differ in excluding the existence of God and/or a purpose for the world. In this article we define worldviews as answering a variety of worldview questions, which we list. Once this is recognized, it becomes clear that scientific worldviews are also a species of worldviews that should not be dismissed categorically. We then distinguish between the project of constructing a scientific worldview and asking whether science itself has any worldview content. We argue that science, even when it is characterized quite minimally, does have worldview content. This has some important implications for science education, which we draw.     

Teaching Darwinian Evolution: Learning from Religious Education

This article examines what science education might be able to learn from phenomenological religious education’s attempts to teach classes where students hold a plurality of religious beliefs. Recent statements as to how best to accomplish the central pedagogical concept of ‘learning from religion’ as a vehicle for human transformation are explored, and then used to appraise the historical research into how Charles Darwin’s responses to religious ideas influenced and were influenced by his scientific work. The issues identified as crucial for science educators to be aware of when teaching students Darwinian evolution are then outlined and, finally, suggestions are made to enable individual students to examine how their personal religious beliefs might interact with their growing understanding of Darwin’s evolutionary approach.     

Habits of Mind, Scholarship and Decision Making in Science and Religion

Recent papers have drawn a contrast between habits of mind in science and religion and it has been argued that, because of the different nature of these habits of mind, science education and religious education are necessarily in conflict with each other. The present paper draws on research into habits of mind in science and their relationship with wider scholarly activity and decision making and presents a case that habits of mind in science and religion are much more alike than has been presumed. In contrast to the dogmatic materialism which others have claimed lies behind the practice of modern science a more tentative form of naturalism is advocated in this paper for those who carry out scientific research. Some aspects of the nature of exemplary religious education are pointed out and implications for science education are discussed.     

Reading Three Israeli Bat/Bar Mitzvah Curricula as Gender,Theological, and Autobiographical Texts

This article analyzes three curricula for the bat/bar-mitzva year of the public religious, Tali and public schools in Israel. It compares their views on gender and theology, and throws light on the intersection of gender, religion and education in Israeli society. It shows how the messages of the public religious and public schools serve to further hegemonic interests in Israeli society, while those of Tali serve interests of marginal groups. In addition, the article analyzes autobiographical influences of some of the curriculum decision made by the authors.     

论默顿的公共知识观以及科学论文制度在中国的异化

从默顿的公共知识观出发,同时参照SSK学派对默顿传统科学社会学的批判,力图从其源初发生的深度上来探讨"知识、个人、公共"三词。尝试从科学论述上升到公共语言的层次上对"科学论文制度在中国的异化"问题做出思考与剖析,以求为理论思考寻找到现实落脚点,最终能对现实有所改变。     

Complex influences of mechanistic knowledge,worldview, and quantitative reasoning on climate change discourse: Evidence for ideologically motivated reasoning among youth

Anthropogenic climate change remains divisive in the United States, where skepticism of the scientific consensus is associated with conservative worldviews, resulting in political polarization. This study considers three hypotheses regarding U.S. polarization over climate change that have emerged from social psychology research and applies them to science education by showing how these hypotheses could relate to adolescents' science learning. We then test each hypothesis within an experimental educational intervention designed to study the influence of worldview, mechanistic knowledge, and quantitative reasoning on students' written arguments about climate change. We used mixed methods to analyze the results of this individually randomized trial with clustering involving 357 participants in grades 9–11 from 5 U.S. sites. Findings show that: (a) exposure to mechanistic knowledge about climate change increased odds of receptivity toward climate change; (b) increasingly conservative worldviews were associated with decreased odds of receptivity; (c) worldview and quantitative reasoning interacted, resulting in an amplified effect of worldview for students with greater quantitative reasoning. Results also suggest that the influence of worldview and mechanistic knowledge on receptivity work independently from one another in our dataset. This study demonstrates the value of teaching mechanistic understandings of climate change, yet also demonstrates the influence of worldview on receptivity to climate change for adolescents, as well as complex interactions between quantitative reasoning (something school science aims to develop) and worldview. It shows that moving the U.S. public toward the scientific consensus is complex and involves confronting ideologically motivated reasoning within science education.     

Science, Worldviews and Education: An Introduction

This special issue of Science & Education deals with the theme of ‘Science, Worldviews and Education’. The theme is of particular importance at the present time as many national and provincial education authorities are requiring that students learn about the Nature of Science (NOS) as well as learning science content knowledge and process skills. NOS topics are being written into national and provincial curricula. Such NOS matters give rise to questions about science and worldviews: What is a worldview? Does science have a worldview? Are there specific ontological, epistemological and ethical prerequisites for the conduct of science? Does science lack a worldview but nevertheless have implications for worldviews? How can scientific worldviews be reconciled with seemingly discordant religious and cultural worldviews? In addition to this major curricular impetus for refining understanding of science and worldviews, there are also pressing cultural and social forces that give prominence to questions about science, worldviews and education. There is something of an avalanche of popular literature on the subject that teachers and students are variously engaged by. Additionally the modernisation and science-based industrialisation of huge non-Western populations whose traditional religions and beliefs are different from those that have been associated with orthodox science, make very pressing the questions of whether, and how, science is committed to particular worldviews. Hugh Gauch Jr. provides a long and extensive lead essay in the volume, and 12 philosophers, educators, scientists and theologians having read his paper, then engage with the theme. Hopefully the special issue will contribute to a more informed understanding of the relationship between science, worldviews and education, and provide assistance to teachers who are routinely engaged with the subject.     

Investigation of worldview theory in a south african context

This article reports on an exploratory investigation carried out to identify conceptions of some components of worldview, based on logicostructural worldview theory, held by science student teachers in a South African context. It explores relationships among worldviews, student characteristics, and scientific concepts. The sample included 48 final-year science student teachers. Data were gathered by a questionnaire with follow-up interviews. Questions were based on Kearney's model of worldview with stimulus items related to each of seven worldview categories. Responses were categorized and examined for possible relationships. Results of the investigation indicated that students' conceptions of time and distance were nonmechanistic and psychologically bound and that authoritarian scientific explanation was considered as sufficient for proof. Some significant relationships were found between items as well as between field of study and scientific conceptions.