Refer back to the 6 Course Learning Outcomes in the syllabus – summarize your learning related to each of the outcomes, and include examples of class readings, discussions, or assignments that were influential in this learning.
1. Understand the differences in European scientific thought and processes before and after the scientific revolution.
Based off of our readings, and what we have learned in class, the scientific revolution began around the mid-16th century. This was a period of expansion in scientific knowledge, a shedding of pre-existing notions and worldviews, and the adoption of new theories that better explained the natural phenomena around us. Prior to this period scientific thought was interwoven with broader topics, such as philosophy. As our reading entitled, “The Medieval Synthesis and Secularization of Human Knowledge: The Scientific Revolution,” stated, the term science was not so much in the vocabulary of this period, rather the term “Natural Philosophy” was given to what we now call science. Therefore, due to this interdisciplinary-like way that early science was practiced many philosophers also had ideas about scientific concepts. In our readings and discussions, for this pre-revolution period we focused in on the concept of the solar system and how the understanding of this concept developed during this pre-scientific revolution period. We read about the non-human centric reasoning for the geocentricism of Aristotle (the sun, stars, and planets cross our skies, therefore they must rotate around the Earth), and Ptolemy’s explanation for our Earth being stationary and in the middle of the universe (we do not feel the Earth spinning, therefore it must not be). As we continued through our coursework, we examined the writings Hippocrates and Ruggero de Parma. Hippocrates was very focused on the diagnostic work of a physician, while de Parma was focused on various types of surgical remedies for ailments. While the work of Hippocrates holds up better to modern science than the work of de Parma, both of their works make use of examining the physical world and finding solutions for problems. The same can be said for the works of Aristotle and Ptolemy, and their attempts to understand the Solar System. We see that prior to the Scientific Revolution, most science happened in a very external and observable fashion, the answers and theories for the questions that arose during this period came from this way of thought.
While the exact beginning of the Scientific Revolution is up for the debate, what really shaped its emergence was the development of the scientific method, widely attributed to Newton. For the first time a truly empirical way to assess the natural phenomena around us emerged. The development of this had direct ramifications throughout the world of the science for the next few centuries. For example, in the work of Louis Pasteur, we begin to see an end to ideas like spontaneous generation and the ability to look beyond just what the naked-eye can see. This led to the development of the germ theory. And similarly, and closer to the initial period of the Scientific Revolution, we have Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler who took the leap from just the observable to something deeper and more empirical. Their works collectively shaped our current understanding of the solar system.
Overall, prior to the Scientific Revolution, the world of science was very much in the line of the great Philosophers, such as Aristotle, with development and variation throughout the following centuries. Now that does not mean that these people, ideas, or theories were wrong, it just means that they were shaped by a worldview that relied on answering larger questions based off of the current understanding of the observable world around those scientists. It wasn’t until the development of a more formalized version of research protocol (ie. The scientific method), that research began to move beyond just what could be observed by the naked eye, but what could be reproduced and verified by others.
2. Describe the impact of technology on scientific discovery throughout history.
The first reading in our class that really began to address technological advancements in the field of science was from Worldviews chapter seventeen, entitled “Galileo and the Evidence from the Telescope.” However, before jumping into the telescope, and the many scientific advancements after that, I think we need to acknowledge the more primitive technology that was used by early natural philosophers, the eyes and the mind. Prior to these advancements, our natural philosophers could only observe the “macro” world around them and use their minds to try and explain this via the prevailing worldview of the time. While “primitive” by today’s standards, this was still a “technology” in a broad sense that assisted with early understanding of primitive science. Galileo’s telescope, according to Worldviews, gave the field of science some of the first empirical knowledge on the solar system, and began a rupture to the natural order of scientific understanding. While not a physical piece of technology, I do think that Newton and Hooke, and their separate development of an early version of what we know call the “scientific method” was an extraordinary tool in the advancement for the field of science. As for more traditional “technology,” I think more about our History of Biology and History of Medicine modules. For example, we read and learned about how Hooke and VanLeeuwenhoek’s work with microscopes brought our “macro” understanding of the world into the “micro”. This in turn led to the research and discoveries by people like Pasteur, who assisted in the discovery and understanding of the world of microbiology and how that affected everything around us, including how we get sick! Additionally, it gave us a better understanding of what exactly a cell is, and the subsequent concept of the Cell Theory, via the work of these two scientists, and other work by Dutrochet, Schleiden, and Schwann (assisted with plant understanding and the differences in plants cells). We then had the work of Fleming and the revolutionary development of antibiotics; forever changing the work of medicine. Around this time as well we had the development of the Germ Cell Theory by Redi, Spallanani, Newport-London, Weismann, and Castle which brought the field of science a better understanding of cell types and reproduction. As well, within the 20th century, we saw how x-rays assisted in our understanding, and the development of the field of molecular biology, and the structure of DNA, due to the research and synthesis by the minds of Franklin, Watson & Crick, and many others. The Human Genome Project was a great example in our History of Biology Module, about how the early research by folks such as Watson & Crick and Rosalind Franklin, has dramatically helped us with our ability to better understand what our DNA means for us. Lastly, in our History of Medicine module, while discussing Leonardi di Vinci and his innumerable contributions, we touched on modern interpretations of his concepts of robotics and how they have assisted us in the advancement of surgical accuracy in the past decade.
3. Analyze significant readings in the history and philosophy of science.
Over our course the bulk of our readings came from Worldviews, Great Experiments in Biology, and The Structures of the Scientific Revolutions. In addition to these readings, we had the occasional associated readings to back up the concepts of our modules (ie. The Medieval Synthesis and Secularization of Human Knowledge: The Scientific Revolution, Darwin Online, The Organon by Francis Bacon, Method of Making an Experiment by Hooke, etc…etc…). I think that we can divide our core readings into two sections, Worldviews and Great Experiments in Biology, under the category of “history” for this course, and The Structure of the Scientific Revolutions (along with the Mystery of Mysteries reading that associated the Popper and Kuhn module) encompassing the “philosophy” aspect of the course. In taking a first person approach to so much of the science we have learned about before and in this class via Great Experiments… we were given a rather invaluable gift of these early “journal articles” that placed us right into the period that we were researching. It further assisted in helping us understand the mindset and thoughts of the times. Worldviews takes a slightly different approach, by taking the works, thoughts, and concepts of science throughout the ages and presenting it in a way to a modern audience that does not patronize the ideas of the times. Looking back now at more “primitive” scientific thought, it is easy to be dismissive and consider those ideas and scientists/ philosophers as “stupid” or “ignorant,” but the strength of Worldviews was its ability to not engage in that of line of thinking. Rather it assessed the time period, the prevailing thoughts and concepts of the period, and the technology available to the philosophers/ scientists of the period. By presenting the information in this manner, the author was able to present to the “modern” person why the ideas of the period make sense in the ever-evolving understanding of the natural sciences. As for the Philosophy side of this class Kuhn really captured what science is, how it affects us, and how we affect it, in his work on paradigm shifts and the further development of scientific understanding. Through Kuhn’s philosophical approach to changing notions in science, he was able to develop a system that allows “incorrect” science to exist as “correct” until a new “paradigm” emerges that better explains said scientific phenomena.
4. Analyze the nature of science through the epistemological implications in its method and practice.
Epistemology is defined, as by Merriam-Webster, as meaning “the study or a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity.” I think that taking a look at our readings, discussions, and coursework, the “epistemology” of science is what eventually developed to be the scientific method. This method was a way to accurately assess and answer the unknown around us via a coherent and logical method. This is the dogma-like guide for research since The Scientific Revolution, and has emerged as the principle way to assess the limits and validity of scientific work. As well, it binds research together across scientific disciplines.
However, I would say that the methods and practices diverge based off of the circumstances that surround scientific research. In a perfect world scenario the two, method and practice, would be the identical. However, over the course of this class, and particularly from our readings in Worldviews and other associated readings such as de Parma’s work, we were given a more real-world and historical-like view of the epistemology of practice within scientific research. Prior to the scientific revolution, and like I mentioned earlier in another answer, just because these researchers did not have the right instruments or make what we now accept as “correct” theories, it does not mean they were stupid or backwards. Rather, they were practicing scientific research to the best of their ability given the time period they conducted said research. Therefore, over the centuries, as we read in our readings, the practice of science has changed, and the method has been fine-tuned, but the epistemology has remained the same, which was, and continues to be, to research the unknown around us and develop thoughtful answers to the questions posed.
5. Distinguish between science and faith, and discuss the potential compatibility of the two (PLO#4)*
While this class touched on the matters of science and faith regularly, the bulk of class discussion on this topic came during the following four modules, “Introduction,” “Galileo to Newton,” “Genetics and Evolution,” and “Popper and Kuhn”. During our introduction to the class we defined and discussed philosophy, science, technology, and religion. In our defining and discussing for science, we stated that it was a methodical and analytical way to build on prior knowledge. We know science to be “true” via observations, data, and peer review. In our defining and discussing for religion, we stated that it was a faith-based entity that relies on belief and not evidence. Based off of this alone, it is easy to say that these are polar opposites. However, I think this class and the discussions we had on it point to something not quite as drastic as that. In one of our first assignments for the class, I remarked that “[like] the correspondence theory of truth (based on/ what corresponds to the observable world) and coherence theory of truth (based on the idea that the truth is based off an assortment of ideas/ concepts), when these ideas are first proposed they seem like polar opposites. Yet, when you dig deeper you see how they are interrelated…” (Peterson, 2017). Religion has history and empirical studies (theology), while science can possess a faith-like religiosity by those in the field. Therefore, there is sort of this sway between science-like and religion-like aspects within these separate fields.
I believe that this idea of compatibility was further strengthened when looking at the life of Galileo. He had no intention of upending the current worldview and creating a rift between science and religion (geocentric and heliocentric), rather he empirically studied the solar system and ended up siding with the Copernican worldview. His opinion on the matter was that the bible was written prior to technological advancements, therefore the bible was true for the time period it was written in about the earth being the center of our solar system, but not anymore since we are more aware due to an increase of knowledge. He was fully in favor of a hand-in-hand relationship between science and religion on this contentious topic for the time period.
Lastly, in the reading from Mystery of Mysteries: Is Evolution a Social Construction, we as a class continued to address the topic of Evolution and Charles Darwin from the prior week. While that reading was rather philosophical about the two distinct philosophies that Popper and Kuhn had developed (Popper being a realist and Kuhn believing that science exists within a pre-existing paradigm), and how evolution relates to personal epistemology of a person and our own collective values as a society, our discussion board for the Genetics and Evolution module was far more focused on the more tangible relations between science/ evolution and religion amongst our class. Many of us in this class have come from and/ or have a current religious background and many of us had a difficult relationship with the concept of evolution and how it fits within a faith context at some point in our life. Like many aspects of society today, the topic of evolution and religion is highly polarizing. However, as seen within our discussion, if you are willing open your worldview beyond what you just feel safe/ comfortable in, it becomes a lot easier to find compatibility between the two.
6. Trace the development of scientific ideas and methods over time in various subject areas, and in parts of the world.
This course laid out the development of scientific ideas and methods in a very linear way that made the concepts easy to understand. We built upon our knowledge in a way that helped us understand where we came from, Aristotle and natural philosophers, to where we are now, Watson & Crick and the Human Genome Project. In effect, it mirrored the way scientific thought built upon itself. I think what particularly helped facilitate this was our History of Medicine and History of Biology presentations. Beyond just assigned readings, these presentations were able to place us into different time period to see the worldview and prevailing thoughts of the time and witness how the knowledge grew and evolved. For example, in our medicine presentations we saw primitive surgical procedures and a lack of cleanliness morph into our “da Vinci” surgical operations and the development of penicillin. Likewise, in our History of Biology presentations we traveled from spontaneous generation to cell theory and the theory of evolution.
As mentioned in this class, much of what we studied was primarily Euro- and American-centric, and mostly conducted by men. Of course, this was not the only research and scientific discovery being made over the centuries. There was research done by all types of people across the world, however, due to the shortness of this class, we were not able to address other discoveries, but that does not diminish the importance of them.