IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

Barriers in Neuroscience?

Matt Jones jonesmat at ohsu.edu
Tue Jun 13 12:36:20 EST 1995


In article <3r8et4$a4h at usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> jeffrey brown gabbard,
jbgabbar at ucs.indiana.edu writes:
>Well, I think this could be a very interesting course.  But IMHO this
would
>be more of a *history* of science and religion course.  We can always
learn
>from other cultures (past and present), but I feel a science course
should
>try and teach (sorry I can't think of any other term but this one)
*reality* 
>as we understand it today.  Not mythology.

Question: Do you think that *science* courses should teach Galileo and
Kepler? Or Rutherford and Bohr? Or Newton? All of these people became
famous for theories which fail to describe what we now believe *reality*
is. Our science is built on the obsolete science that came before us, and
a lot of that science was thoroughly intertwined with religion (mainly
Catholicism). I agree with you completely that what we think of as
science is fundamentally different from anything the authors of Genesis
(for example) had in mind when describing their world view. But to gain a
real perspective on *how* and *why* it's different, we need to compare
the two world views, and the methods that lead to them. So IMHO, teaching
the history of scienctific ideas and methods has a definite place in a
science curriculum.



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net