Abstract
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”.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
AAAS [American Association for the Advancement of Science] (1989) Science for all Americans. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington
AAAS (1990) The liberal art of science. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington
Angier N (2007) The canon: a whirligig tour of the beautiful basics of science. Houghton Mifflin, New York
Baron-Cohen S (2003) The essential difference. Basic Books, New York
Behe MJ (1996) Darwin’s black box. Simon & Schuster, New York
Carter B (1974) Large number coincidences and the anthropic principle in cosmology. In: Longair MA (ed) Confrontation of cosmological theories with observational data. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 291–298
Carr BJ, Rees MJ (1979) The anthropic principle and the structure of the physical world. Nature 278:605–612
Cordero A (2001) Scientific culture and public education. Sci & Educ 10(2001):71–83
Dawkins R (1995) River out of Eden. Basic Books, New York
Dennett DC (1995) Darwin’s dangerous idea. Simon & Schuster, New York
Gauch HG Jr (2006) Science, worldviews, and education. This issue of Science and Education. Also available online at http://www.springerlink.com/content/p668904p854h5t6x/
Kitcher P (1983) Believing where we cannot prove. In: Abusing science: the case against creationism. Cambridge, MIT Press, MA, pp 30–54
Laudan L (1996) Beyond positivism and relativism. Westview Press, Boulder, CO
Leplin J (1997) A novel defense of scientific realism. Oxford University Press, Oxford
McMullin E (1981) Is philosophy relevant to cosmology? Am Philos Q (18):177–189
Newton I (1729/1934) Principia Mathematica, Second Edition, (trans: Cajori F), University of California Press, Berkeley. (First Edition, 1687)
Psillos S (1999) Scientific realism. Routledge, New York
Pinker S (2002). The blank slate. Penguin Books, London
Rickman HP (1988) Dilthey today: a critical appraisal of the contemporary relevance of his work. Greenwood Press, Westport
Shapere D (1991) The universe of modern science and its philosophical exploration. In: Agazzi E, Cordero A (eds) Philosophy and the origin and evolution of the universe. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 87–202
Sokal A, Bricmont J (1998) Fashionable nonsense: postmodern intellectuals’ abuse of science. Picador, New York
Stebbing LS (1937/1958) Philosophy and the physicists, Dover Publications, New York
Ziman J (1968) Public knowledge. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Zimmer C (1998) At the water’s edge: macroevolution and the transformation of life. The Free Press, New York
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2007 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cordero, A. (2007). Contemporary Science and Worldview-Making. In: Matthews, M.R. (eds) Science, Worldviews and Education. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2779-5_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2779-5_5
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-2778-8
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-2779-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)