Putting Science in Context

Kurt Spellmeyer, Spring 2003

Assignment #1: On Science versus Common Sense

In his essay "What Does the Dreaded ‘E' Word Mean, Anyway," Stephen Jay Gould explores the changing connotations of the term "evolution." Gould spends much of the essay contrasting the differing ideas of evolution developed by the natural sciences and the physical sciences, in particular astronomy. He is also concerned, however, with the way that the idea of evolution has taken root in the common-sense of non-scientists. For your first paper, please write an essay that responds to the following question:

What, in your view, is the appropriate relation between scientific knowledge and common sense–the attitudes and beliefs of ordinary non-specialists?

As you develop your response, you may wish to consider some of the following questions if they prove helpful to you. Please do not try to answer them all.

What is "common sense"? Is it the same thing as reason, logic, or "good sense"? Is common sense sometimes the same as "prejudice"? Are some commonsensical ideas actually irrational or superstitious? Using Gould's essay as a guide, please identify some of the factors that have shaped our common-sense ideas about subjects like the natural world, the place of humans in the scheme of things, and the importance of technological and social progress. How does science differ from common sense? Is science always "right" when it conflicts with common sense? Can common sense ever be "right" when "science" is wrong? Can science ever be "wrong"? How does your thinking confirm, complicate, or contradict Gould's?

An essay like this one requires you to do two things at once. First, you need to make a point of your own, instead of simply summarizing the argument presented by the author. Second, you should draw on Gould's essay for ideas and examples that will support to the point or points you are making. Please try to make detailed and careful use of the information that Gould provides you. Use his thinking to stimulate yours.

Assignment #2: "Good Science," "Bad Science," and the Nature of Truth

We have now read two quite different prose pieces. The first, Stephen Jay Gould's "What Does the Dreaded "E" Word Mean, Anyway?" deals primarily with various understandings, and misunderstandings, of Darwin's enormously important discovery. The second reading, several chapters from Jasper Becker's book Hungry Ghosts: Mao's Secret Famine, describes the disastrous agricultural policy initiated by the government of mainland China during the late 1950s and early 1960s.

As I said in class, these two readings have very few connections on the level of what they explicitly say, but on the level of implications, many rich connections might be made. For the second assignment, you will need to make such connections between the two texts as you develop a response to the following question:

Is reality just a matter of perspective? Does it matter if one set of scientific conclusions becomes more widely accepted than another? To what extent should our values be allowed to influence the conduct of scientific research? Can science ever be totally free from non-scientific values? How can we distinguish between science and pseudo-science? When science conflicts with our values, what should we do about it?

In China, did the problem lie with bad science, or with bad uses of science? Or did it lie with popular common sense--superstitions and fantasy? If the Chinese leadership had read Gould's essay, would famine have been avoided, or was the famine caused by factors other than "bad science" alone?

The first question above, in bold type, is the one that you should answer in your papers. The questions that follow it do not need to be answered, but they might help you to think through some of the ramifications of the initial question. Please do not try to construct your essays by answering each of the subquestions: that will not produce a coherent argument.

Assignment #3: The Science of Human Behavior

Please use the readings by Gladwell, Becker, and Gould to write an essay that responds to the following question:

Given the evidence that Gould and Becker provide, do you feel that Gladwell's claims about the laws governing human behavior are justified? In what ways do Gould and Becker confirm Gladwell's argument? In what ways do they complicate or even contradict Gladwell's argument, in part or in whole? What are some of the larger implications for society, for education, for politics?

The sentence in bold is the actual question; the sentences that follow it are related questions that it might be helpful to consider. Please understand that the question is not asking you to "compare and contrast" the three authors. Instead, the question requires you to test Gladwell's argument, or some portion of the argument, against the specific evidence provided by Gould and Becker. In the process, you may wish to modify Gladwell's argument in order to improve it; alternately, you might offer a counterargument. You can focus on any aspect of Gladwell's argument that you like, and you can use any evidence provided by Gould and Becker. Feel free to discuss the implications that you consider to be most important.