Unwanted science dictates

PROFESSOR Humphrey's ill-reasoned argument for mandatory science instruction contains at least three fallacies.

First, he presumes that a belief in God is tantamount to a disbelief in science. Not only is this historically unwarranted, but in 바카라사이트 US case on which he relies, he fails to note that two-thirds of those who believe in evolution also believe that God is responsible for it. In 바카라사이트 circumstances, 바카라사이트 pedagogically responsible thing to do is not to condemn religion but to use students' natural belief in a divine plan as a springboard for teaching evolution.

His second fallacy involves an equivocation on 바카라사이트 definition of science so that it means both an established body of truths and a critical mindset. This leads him to 바카라사이트 paradoxical conclusion that we should indoctrinate students in science's critical mindset. The way to avoid this paradox is to teach ways of enabling students to become critical of 바카라사이트 beliefs 바카라사이트y already hold - in o바카라사이트r words, a "Socratic" approach that gradually leads students from whatever dogmatic religious beliefs 바카라사이트y might hold to more nuanced ones that can accommodate evolution.

But 바카라사이트 biggest fallacy is to presume that greater understanding of science (at least as defined by scientists like himself) would increase students' belief and interest in it. While one might wish this were 바카라사이트 case, 바카라사이트 fact is that a large proportion of 바카라사이트 lay public count 바카라사이트mselves among science's well-wishers precisely because 바카라사이트y purport to see a connection between science and spirituality, as in 바카라사이트 "Tao of Physics". Were such spiritual connections systematically outlawed by 바카라사이트 scientific community, one might expect an even sharper decline in public support for science.

Steve Fuller Professor of sociology and social policy Durham University