Teaching Science…
Running Head: TEACHING SCIENCE IN THE CONTEXT OF CLASSICAL AESTHETICS
Teaching Science in the Context of Classical Aesthetics
Kevin D. McMahon
California State University, Northridge
1
Teaching Science…
2
ABSTRACT:
Nobel Laureate, Richard Feynman, observed that, “You can recognize truth by its beauty and
simplicity” (Augros & Stanciu, 1984 p.39). Yet, many scientists, teachers, and students do not
recognize that beauty is a criterion of truth in science. The purpose of this research project was
to examine whether students would (1) recognize the legitimate value of learning science in the
context of aesthetics, and (2) demonstrate aesthetical knowledge (3) while incorporating the
language of aesthetics and philosophy in their understanding and descriptions of nature and the
nature of science. This action research project was conducted in an AP Chemistry class over a
period of four months. Sixteen students participated in the study. The students received explicit
instruction in the philosophy of aesthetics during the first ten minutes of the class (approximately
three times per week). During the course of the study the students completed a total of thirteen
surveys and questionnaires. Analysis of these assessment instruments indicated that (1) there
was an increase in the percentage of students who believed that learning aesthetics was a
valuable component of their understanding of nature and the nature of science, (2) that slightly
less than half of the students demonstrated that they had acquired knowledge of aesthetical
principles, (3) while a smaller percentage than this incorporated the language of aesthetics in
their discussion of nature and the nature of science.
Teaching Science…
3
“The world will be saved by Beauty.”
~ Fyodor Dostoyevski
What is the criterion of truth for science? If one were to ask that question of many
scientists, most teachers of science, and nearly all science students it is likely that there would be
nearly universal agreement on the role of experimentation in the validation of scientific
hypotheses and theories. Increasingly however, there is recognition that beauty may be the
primary criteria for the accuracy of a scientific idea, especially among the physical sciences. As
Augros and Stanciu stated in The New Story of Science, “All of the most eminent physicists of
the twentieth century agree that beauty is the primary standard for scientific truth” (Augros &
Stanciu, 1984 p. 39). Yet, it is unlikely that there is much, if any, explicit instruction of
aesthetics in the science classroom.
Purpose Statement
The purpose of this research project was to examine whether students would (1)
recognize the legitimate value of learning science in the context of classical aesthetics, and (2)
demonstrate aesthetical knowledge (3) while incorporating the language of aesthetics and
philosophy in their understanding and descriptions of nature and the nature of science.
If the host of Nobel laureates that concur with Augros and Stanciu are correct, then
science teachers do their students a disservice in not discussing the role of beauty in the Nature
of Science. We may also be depriving future generations and ourselves of discoveries and
breakthroughs that may be more readily accessible through an epistemology that incorporates
aesthetics. Furthermore, a science deprived of Beauty (which in the classical understanding
incorporates both the True and the Good) may be vulnerable to supporting and developing ideas
and technologies that are harmful to our environment and our selves.
Teaching Science…
4
Importance of Study
This study will be of value to those who are interested in (1) incorporating aesthetics
(and related philosophical concepts) into their science instruction, and (2) students’ willingness
and ability to learn aesthetics in subjects (such as science) which are typically considered
outside the domain of aesthetical and philosophical discussion. This study may also be of value
to those who believe that (3) Nature should not and cannot be described by Science alone and
(4) that other epistemological approaches may reveal the Otherness of Nature and foster an
ethic that shifts the investigative dynamic from that of subject-object to that of subject-subject.
Definition of Terms
Term
Aesthetics
Beauty
Epistemology
Ethics
Form
Noesis
Ontology
Definition
The study and appreciation of beauty.
Objective, ontological beauty as in the Beauty of nature as described by science
or in philosophy the Platonic form of Beauty. This type of beauty is
distinguished from the subjective or relativistic form by identifying it with the
use of capitalization.
The branch of philosophy that attempts to explain how we know and criteria of
truth.
The branch of philosophy that attempts to define the moral principles that
govern the behavior of individuals and society.
In Platonic philosophy the underlying metaphysical reality that is the ontological
cause of being. This term is distinguished from other, more generic use of this
word, by use of italic type.
In Platonic philosophy the manner in which mind intuitively perceives the form
of objects.
The branch of philosophy dealing with the nature of being.
Before we examine the relationship between beauty and science we must examine the
Nature of Beauty. However, it should be noted that when scientists speak of Beauty they are not
informed by the Modernists subjective interpretation of aesthetics whereby “beauty is in the eye
of he beholder.” Rather, as Arthur Miller (2006) posited, “So what makes [science] beautiful?
For most art theorists and artists, beauty is subjective, but not for scientists. To scientists
symmetry is beauty and therefore objective….” (Miller, 2006). Objective Beauty is inherent in
Teaching Science…
5
the object perceived and is independent of the subject and hence is not subjective. Consequently,
the Beautiful in science is not in the eye of the beholder but is intrinsic to the object being
beheld. Whether or not the Beauty is beheld is, therefore, a function of the acuity of the
perception of the beholder. In this regard, aestheticians of science have more in common with
Classical Aesthetics than Modern subjectivists’ conceptions of beauty. To avoid confusion when
discussing aesthetics, objective-ontological beauty (as in the Beauty of nature or the Platonic
form of Beauty) will be capitalized whereas subjective beauty will be kept in lower case.
A Word About the Literature Review
The proposed marriage between Science and Aesthetics may seem to some as an unlikely
union. Indeed, a review of the literature has revealed that although some scientists and
philosophers have considered such an alliance, there has been very little research done related to
the introduction of these concepts into the secondary classroom. As a consequence, it is
impossible to discuss at any considerable length the research that has been done in the area that
is the focus of this research project. Therefore, much of the Literature Review is a philosophical
defense of the idea that the practice of science would be enhanced by the inclusion of aesthetics
and that our students may benefit from learning science in the context of classical aesthetics.
The research of Blades, Girod, Sadler, Clarkeburn, and others that report either directly or
indirectly on this topic will be discussed. I will also discuss how misconceptions and myths
regarding the Nature of Science have resulted in an academic environment where the
appropriateness of this “marriage” is either not perceived or is not welcomed. Finally, I will
discuss my own experience with the teaching of philosophy and science, and the development of
a curriculum specifically designed for teaching science in the context of classical aesthetics,
which was employed during the course of this study.
Teaching Science…
6
CLASSICAL AESTHETICS AND SCIENCE
Classical aesthetics, as informed by philosophical realism, holds that Beauty is inherent
in objects, that is, it is ontological—Beauty is an aspect of its being. To say something is
beautiful (in the classical sense) is to make a statement about reality. The observing subject may
or may not apprehend the Beauty of the object, but that makes the object no less beautiful.
Science makes similar claims about its descriptions of reality. A person may not know that a
diamond is a network solid composed of carbon atoms that possess sp3 hybridization, but their
ignorance of that fact has no consequence on the chemical composition of the diamond. In this
regard then, both classical aesthetics and science make “truth” claims about the world outside of
us.
According to classical aesthetics the Beautiful can be recognized as possessing five
principal qualities: unity, harmony, symmetry, wholeness, and radiance (Dubay, 1999 p. 34).
We find reference to these traits in the affirmations of hypotheses and theories by scientists.
Nobel Laureate, Richard Feynman, observed that, “You can recognize truth by its beauty and
simplicity” (Augros & Stanciu, 1984 p. 39). Simplicity is frequently cited as a characteristic of
valid scientific ideas. Unity, harmony, and symmetry in their connatural wholeness appear as
“simplicity”—a state free of superfluities—and in this regard consistent with Ockham’s razor,
which is axiomatic to the scientific method. Astrophysicist Roger Penrose validates Einstein’s
General Theory of Relativity by reference to the simplicity of beauty: “…no rival theory comes
close to general relativity in elegance [beauty] or simplicity of assumption” (Penrose, 1980, p.
128). The symmetry possessed by beautiful things is also evident to scientists. Werner
Heisenberg stated that “the symmetry properties always constitute the most essential features of
a theory” (Heisenberg, 1975 p. 167). It has been said that Einstein was amazed that the universe
Teaching Science…
7
was even understandable; that it was he attributed to the aesthetical principal of harmony:
“…without belief in the inner harmony of the world there could be no science” (Einstein &
Infeld. 1938 p. 313). The Unity and Wholeness of Beauty reflects the paradoxical dichotomy of
the One and the Many, that is, how the One can manifest in the Many while the Many constitute
the One. This was the paradox that the Greeks, from Thales of Miletus to Aristotle whetted and
honed their philosophical skills. Again, we see this reflected in science. Sir George Thomason
alludes to this idea when he stated in The Inspiration of Science, “…in physics, as in
mathematics, it is a great beauty if a theory can bring together apparently different phenomena
and show that they are closely connected; or even different aspect of the same thing” (Thomason,
1961 p.18). The physicist, Henri Poincaré made a similar observation: “…it is because of
simplicity [of the One] and vastness [of the Many] are both beautiful that we seek by preference
simple facts and vast facts” (Augros & Stanciu, 1984 p. 43).
It is evident from the discussion above that the recognition of Beauty in nature and the
application of aesthetical principals should be part of what we call Science and the Scientific
Method. But what part does it play? Is Beauty the supporting actress to the main character,
Experimentation? In his essay, A Thing of Beauty, Arthur Miller tells a story that turns scientific
epistemology and its claim that “the experiment is king” on its head:
“In Schrödinger’s first attempt to concoct his famous wave equation, he looked for one
that agreed with relativity theory. The equation he came up with, however, was not
supported by experiment. Eventually he produced the Schrödinger equation, which was
not beautiful, but did at least fit the data. Dirac thought that Schrödinger should have
ignored the data and persevered in his pursuit of a beautiful equation. Dirac did just
that. He discovered an equation that was consistent with relativity theory but
represented in a mathematics unfamiliar to most physicists…. The problem was that it
predicted particles with negative energy, which everyone thought was an impossibility.
Werner Heisenberg condemned it as the “saddest chapter in theoretical physics.”
Shortly afterwards, Dirac realized that these particles were actually antiparticles with
positive energy. They were later discovered in the laboratory. Once again insisting on
beauty in a mathematical theory revealed unexpected features in nature” (Miller, 2006).
Teaching Science…
Thus, the claim is being made that aesthetics is not only a part of the scientific method but may
be the criteria of truth par excellence. In this we hear echoes of Keats,
“‘Beauty is truth, truth beauty,’ - that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.”
(from John Keats, Ode to a Grecian Urn, 1819)
Perception of Beauty
Classical aesthetics holds that Beauty is objective, but that does not negate the
significance of the subject in his or her perception of Beauty. Some forms of Beauty are more
readily accessible than others: a sunset, a well-manicured garden, a melodious voice, a comely
face. Other forms of Beauty require maturation and even some level of technical sophistication:
Igor Stravinsky’s Le Sacre du Printemps, a Breguet tourbillon watch, a well-crafted Hefe
Weizen, e e cummings’ a leaf falls in loneliness. This is particularly true of the subtle
complexities ubiquitous throughout the cosmos. It takes considerable academic training to
perceive the Beauty in chemiosmotic coupling, quantum mechanics, cell-to-cell communication
via plasmodesmata, or string theory. Yet, for many scientists their skillful application of
scientific methodology leads them not just to new knowledge but to Beauty. Albert Einstein
acknowledged this, “After a certain high level of technical skill is achieved, science and art tend
to coalesce in esthetics, plasticity, and form. The greatest scientists are always artists as well"
(Doucette, 2007) However, according Classical Aesthetics there are some levels of Beauty that
are not accessible to the intellect no matter what level of technical skill is achieved. Classical
aesthetics holds that the Beauty possessed by material things radiates from the hidden form
within.
8
Teaching Science…
9
Radiant Form
At the heart of the Greek philosophical endeavor was the search for the Urstoff, the
unifying principal of all things. They came up with varied ideas, but two endure to this day:
atom and form. Democritus, Epicurus, and Lucretius were the principal architects of atomic
materialism (materialism here means that all things including stars, rocks, plants and people are
made only of matter, in this case atoms, and that they possess no transcendental nature since the
meta-physical does not exist). Plato proposed that all things possesses an underlying, invisible,
metaphysical (transcendent) organizing principle which he called form. His ideas have been
elaborated and modified through the centuries, but they endure to this day and are central to
metaphysics.
According to Classical Aesthetics, Beauty radiates from the object’s form. As the
philosopher/theologian, Hans von Balthasar, states: “…the light does not fall on this form from
above and from outside, rather it breaks forth from the form’s interior” (von Ballthasar, 1982 p.
151). If this radiance is not perceived by the senses shouldn’t it be excluded from the domain of
science? Many eminent scientists would argue against this.
“…blindly seeing, deafly hearing, unconsciously remembering, that drives the larva
into the butterfly. If [the scientist] has not experienced, at least a few times in his life,
this cold shudder down his spine, this confrontation with an immense invisible face
whose breath moves him to tears, he is not a scientist” (Chargaff, 1987 p. 199).
“The sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our
mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as
feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to
wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of
the lofty structure of all that there is” (Einstein, 1932).
According to Classical Aestheticians and philosophers, form is not perceived by the
senses, nor is it apprehended by discursive reasoning or scientific method both of which probe
and dissect the objects of their knowing. Maritain observes, “If the form is broken down into
Teaching Science…
10
subdivisions and auxiliary parts for the sake of explanation, this is unfortunately a sign that the
true form has not been perceived as such at all” (Dubay, 1999 p. 52). How then do we perceive
the radiance of form?
In the Symposium, Plato suggests that the soul (the form of man) at the summit of its
ascent to behold Beauty perceives it “on a sudden.” In the Republic, he refers to this type of
knowing as noesis—an intuitional knowing achieved only through asceticism and the assistance
of Eros (Love). At the summit, the knower intuits that it was neither through craft nor skill of
intellect that he is able to behold Beauty, rather it is Beauty inviting the knower a glimpse into
her Mystery.
Mystery, then, is another element of Beauty. Radiance of form reveals its Beauty in the
external physicality of the object while “protecting and veiling…the ontological secret within”
(Dubay, 1999 p. 51). In this regard, Beauty can never be fully known for at its depth is Mystery.
Mystery is where man stands at the limit of his epistemologies. Einstein alludes to this when he
stated, “The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious— the fundamental emotion
which stands at the cradle of true art and true science” (Einstein, 1931). Scientists, such as
Einstein, who have stood at the summit of Beauty ultimately abandon the cold analysis which
fails to capture the Mystery of Beauty:
“…mystery remains, more profound and more beautiful than ever before, a reality
almost inaccessible to our feeble human means” (de Duve, 2000).
“In the end, science as we know it has two basic types of practitioners. One is the
educated man who still has a controlled sense of wonder before the universal mystery,
whether it hides in a snail’s eye or within the light that impinges on that delicate organ.
The second kind of observer is the extreme reductionist who is so busy stripping things
apart that the tremendous mystery has been reduced to a trifle, to intangibles not worth
troubling one’s head about” (Eisley, 1979, p. 151).
“Mystery generates wonder, and wonder generates awe. The gasp can terrify or the
gasp can emancipate. As I allow myself to experience cosmic and quantum Mystery, I
Teaching Science…
11
join the saints and the visionaries in their experience of what the called the Divine, and
I pulse with the spirit….” (Goodenough, 2000, p. 12).
Knowledge is an island. The larger we make that island, the longer becomes the shore
where knowledge is lapped by mystery. It is the most common of all misconceptions
about science that it is somehow inimical to mystery, that it grows at the expense of
mystery and intrudes with its brash certitudes upon the space of God…. But in a world
described by science, mystery abides, in the space between the stars and in the
interstices of snow. The extension of knowledge is the extension of mystery” (Raymo,
1997, p. 66).
In all of the above comments, one senses that each of these scientists have been touched
by Mystery, and as a result, changed by their encounter with the radiant form of Beauty. This is
a science that exceeds Francis Bacon’s famous utilitarian prescription scientia potentia est,
“knowledge is power.” It suggests that a holistic encounter with Beauty, one that employs both
reason and noesis, is transformative. This is consistent with Plato’s Symposium in which he
claimed that in an encounter with ultimate Mystery, the One who is Beauty, True, and Good, we
appropriate true virtue and happiness, a aliquot from the vast plentitude of Mystery.
“Even today, in our technically sophisticated times, a view of the night sky from a dark
place – Hyakutake on its westward arch, Venus among the Pleiades, the Moon rising in
eclipse – cannot fail to inspire dreams of a grandeur and a meaning greater than
ourselves… The heavens declare God’s glory. “The work of the eyes is done, now/go
and do heart-work,” says the poet Rainer Maria Rilke” (Raymo, 1998, p.247-248)
The Twin Sisters of Beauty: The True and the Good
Reference was made of the True and the Good in the above. Plato frequently used these
terms interchangeably as they were seen to interpenetrate and coexist with each other as
expressions of the One. All objects, having their origin in the One, participate in a finite extent
in Truth, Goodness, and Beauty. They are inseparable. As the theologian and philosopher Han
Urs von Balthasar has described: “…beauty dances as an uncontained splendour around the
double constellation of the true and the good and their inseparable relation to one another” (von
Teaching Science…
12
Balthasar, 1993 p. 115). Von Balthasar further describes an encounter with the Beautiful as
follows: “a being appears, it has an epiphany: in that it is beautiful and it gives itself, it delivers
itself to us: it is good. And in giving itself up, it speaks itself, it unveils itself: it is true” (von
Balthasar, 1993, p. 116).
The True, the Good, and the Beautiful, the three transcendentals as they are sometimes
called, have come to represent the three main branches of philosophy: Epistemology (the True),
Ethics (the Good), and Ontology (the Beautiful). Science has most often defined itself as an
epistemological enterprise, but as we have seen in our discussion this is reductionism which
needlessly deprives scientists and students of science of the awe, wonderment, and
transformative power of Beauty. Furthermore, a science deprived of the beautiful and the good
may be more vulnerable to mischief and harm. Von Balthasar warns that a transcendental “will
not allow herself to be separated and banned from her two sisters without taking them along with
herself in an act of mysterious vengeance” (von Balthasar, 1993 p. 118). An objective critique of
the history of science will sadly demonstrate the “mysterious vengeance” that has occurred when
science has been deprived of the good and the beautiful.
The True versus Scientism
It is not at all clear whether the scientists quoted in the previous discussions would
endorse the classical aesthetical philosophy presented here. However, they all seem to be in
agreement that there is something available to the scientists that goes beyond simplistic and
potentially reductionistic articulations of the Nature of Science. This is in contrast with the
agenda of some scientists and science educators that have adopted the philosophical position of
ontological materialism: If all that is is matter than science as the method par excellence for
Teaching Science…
13
studying matter becomes the method par exellence for knowing all there is to know. Harvard
professor of biology, Richard Lewontin, articulates this position clearly:
“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in
spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite
of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because
we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods
and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the
phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to
material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that
produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how
mystifying to the uninitiated” (Lewontin, 1997 p. 31).
Scientific materialism is more a leap of faith than a logical extension of scientific
methodology. In essence, the scientific materialist has taken a methodological assumption and
turned it into an epistemological axiom. It is a philosophical position often referred to as
scientism which Professor of Education, Elizabeth St. Pierre, defines as “…science's belief in
itself: that is, the conviction that we can no longer understand science as one form of possible
knowledge, but rather must identify knowledge with science” (St. Pierre, 2006, p. 259). The
concern is that scientism is becoming synonymous with science and as such excludes those
practitioners who adopt more holistic epistemologies (such as classical aesthetics and the
doctrine of forms).
If the growth of scientific knowledge is the key accomplishment of the past three
centuries in the West, it has been accompanied by an elaborate philosophical defense of
a variety of exclusionary practices by which those deemed to be untrained in or
unreceptive to such science are shunted aside or even denied opportunities to speak”
(Ruccio, 2003 as quoted by St. Pierre, 2006, p. 258).
Professor of Sociology and philosopher of science, Steve Fuller, of Warwick University in
England is a case in point. When he testified on behalf of the Dover School Board in support of
Intelligent Design there were multiple calls to the Dean of the University for his firing. To
Teaching Science…
14
which Fuller responded: "This is the kind of thing that potentially you open yourself to, that your
colleagues and all sorts of people will just denounce you. I wouldn't encourage this kind of
behavior on the part of people who don't have regular academic posts" (The Guardian, 2006).
St. Pierre would cite the above as an example of exclusivity of scientism which she
claims is fundamentally unethical:
“…when we are entrenched in a particular way of thinking about the world, one in
which we have been trained, one that seems to suit our ends and our dispositions, it is
very difficult to hear others, to be willing to hear them. But if we are really working
any epistemology for all it’s worth, we will inevitably come up against … the
boundary where thought stops what it cannot bear to know, what it must shut out to
think as it does. At this boundary, ethics comes into play, because we are not just
rejecting another epistemology to shut out critique and keep our own intact, we are
also rejecting the people who live that epistemology” (St. Pierre, 2006, p. 257).
Scientism is bereft of Beauty while it reduces the True to the true. Ultimately, the “mysterious
vengeance” ensues as the Beautiful and the True withdraw and with them they take their sister,
the Good. As famous primatologist, ethologist, and anthropologist, Jane Goodall reflected,
“How sad it would be, I thought, if we humans ultimately were to lose all sense of mystery, all
sense of awe, if our left brains were utterly to dominate the right so that logic and reason
triumphed over intuition and alienated us absolutely from our innermost being, from our hearts,
from our souls” (Goodall, 2000).
The Good, Scientism and Education
Plato, and those philosophers who had adopted his doctrine of forms, envisioned objects
being beautiful, true and good in so far as they participated in the Summon Pulchrum (Supreme
Beauty), Summon Verum (Supreme Truth), and Summon Bonum (Supreme Good). In this sense,
ethics indwells ontology, put more simply—Goodness is objective. Many of the dialogues of
Plato recount Socrates’ effort to discern the “good” that was universal to all men; he attempted
Teaching Science…
15
this through a dialectical process. From these early efforts the first articulations of Natural Law
theory were laid down. In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle states that the Natural Law is
“What is natural has the same validity everywhere alike, independent of its seeming so or not”
(Rice, 1995, p. 31). Natural Law became the foundation upon which Western jurisprudence was
built.
Scientism posits ethics, or lack there of, in nature as well, however this nature is
materialistic not rooted in the transcendent form of the Good. W. Provine, E.O. Wilson, and
Richard Dawkins offer succinct articulations of an ethic based on scientism:
“Humans are complex organic machines that die completely with no survival of soul or
psyche…. No inherent moral or ethical laws exist, nor are there absolute guiding
principles for human society. The universe cares nothing for us and we have no
ultimate meaning in life” (Provine, 1988, p. 10-11).
“As evolutionists, we see that no [ethical] justification of the traditional kind is
possible. Morality, or more strictly our belief in morality, is merely an adaptation put
in place to further our reproductive ends. Hence the basis of ethics does not lie in
God’s will…. In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off
on us by our genes to get us to cooperate. It is without external grounding” (Wilson &
Ruse, 1985 from Rolston, 1999 p. 250).
“The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is,
at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless
indifference” (Dawkins, 1995, p. 132-133).
Scientists whose ethics are formed by the assumptions of scientism may offer “insights” that the
general public may not yet be ready for:
"No newborn infant should be declared human until it has passed certain tests regarding
its genetic endowment, and that if it fails these tests it forfeits the right to live.” — Dr.
Francis Crick, Nobel Prize Laureate 1962, co-discovery of DNA.
"Chimeras [human-animal crossbreads] or parahumans might legitimately be fashioned
to do dangerous or demeaning jobs. As it is now, low-grade work is shoved off on
moronic and retarded individuals, the victims of uncontrolled reproduction. Should we
not program such workers 'thoughtfully' instead of accidentally, by means of
hybridization?" — Dr. Joseph Fletcher, Harvard University professor widely
Teaching Science…
16
recognized as the "patriarch of bioethics."
(Elliot Institute, 2006)
Even so, the National Academy of Sciences and the Institutes of Health are looking to science as
the criteria by which to establish the new field of bioethics. Addressing the Institutes of
Medicine conference, 2020 Vision: Health in the 21st Century, Secretary of Health and Human
Services, Donna Shalala, is quoted as saying, “Let us ensure that our bioethics are as
sophisticated as our science” (NAS, 1996 p. 111). However, this is a science that, as Stanford
Professor of Philosophy, Richard Rorty, observed cannot differentiate between modern medicine
and voodoo:
“Philosophers on the one side want something to rely on, something that is not subject
to chance. Philosophers on the other side try to find ways of preserving most of
common sense while keeping faith with Darwin with the realization that our species, its
faculties and its current scientific and moral languages, are as much products of chance
as are tectonic plates and mutated viruses. They can try to explain how social
democrats can be better than Nazis, modern medicine better than voodoo, and Galileo
better than the Inquisition, even though there are no neutral, transcultural, a historical
criteria that dictate these rankings” (Rorty, 1995, p. 36 ).
Given the influence of science on our culture and the tendency to equate scientism with
science it is understandable why there is moral confusion not only among scientists, but also
among students of science and the population in general. The research of Troy Sadler (2004)
demonstrated that when students were presented with ethical dilemmas they did not demonstrate
any particular systematic approach to their decision making process. A recent survey of
American youth conducted by the Josephson Institute of Ethics (2006) revealed that:
• 82% admit they lied to parent within the past year about something significant.
• 62% admit they lied to teacher within the past year about something significant.
• 60% cheated during a test at school within the past year.
Teaching Science…
17
• 23% stole something from a parent or other relative within the year.
• 19% stole something from a friend within the past year.
• 28% stole something from a store within the past year.
These statistics may not be surprising to those of us that work with young people, but
what is truly disturbing is that this same survey revealed that 92% of the students surveyed stated
that they were “satisfied with [their] own ethics and character.” Scientism and moral relativism
has separated the Good from the Beautiful and the True. Once again, we are witnesses to the
“mysterious vengeance.” Freed from these ontological and epistemological moorings ethics has
devolved into a form of lazy self-interested pragmatism and in some instances nihilistic
hedonism.
What does this have to do with science education? Science is often characterized as
morally neutral—clearly it is not. But even if it were, scientists are not. Henriikka Clarkeburn
demonstrated that those trained in the sciences did not demonstrate an increased moral sensitivity
to socio-scientific moral issues when compared to non-science college students (Clarkeburn,
2003). Yet, we are entrusting our scientists with perhaps the greatest moral issues of our time—
the manipulation of the human genome.
We can expect that the generation of scientists we are
now training will have even greater complex moral dilemmas to confront. There is cause for
concern when one considers that these future scientists are derived from the same stock that
admitted to lying, cheating, and stealing but were okay with their own moral development. If we
are serious about moving our students from being ethical novices to experts we need to give
some space to ethical discussion in our science curricula while providing students a framework
by which to respectfully engage moral dilemmas and those who hold varying opinions.
Teaching Science…
18
The True, the Good, and the Beautiful in Science Education
There have been many ideas put forth over the years for the reform of science education.
Most recently, these reforms have focused on the area of content. There is little argument that
teachers and students should be held accountable for the teaching and learning of certain agreed
upon content standards. However, there are clear battle lines drawn between those who promote
breadth of content and depth of process. This Action Research Project proposes another avenue
of discussion: that we should introduce our students to the ideas of the beautiful, the true, and
the good and the wonderment, awe, and reverence for nature and life that these can instill. This
is consistent with the statements made by eminent scientists regarding truth and beauty that were
cited earlier. It is also inline with the reforms proposed by noted physician, scientist, and author
of Lives of a Cell, Lewis Thomas:
“We have a wilderness of mystery to make our way through in the centuries ahead, and
we will need science for this, but not science alone… I suggest that the introductory
courses in science, at all levels from grade school through college, be radically revised.
Leave the fundamentals, the so-called basics, aside for a while, and concentrate the
attention of the students on the things that are not known…. Let it be known, early on,
that there are deep mysteries and profound paradoxes…. Teach at the outset, before
any of the fundamentals, the still imponderable puzzles of cosmology. Let it be known,
as clearly as possible, by the youngest minds, that there are some things going on in the
universe that lie beyond comprehension …” (Thomas, 1995, p. 150-155).
Acknowledging that science alone is insufficient in our approach to mystery is an aspect of what
has been suggested by this discussion of transcendent forms. But Thomas brings up another
interesting idea, that is, to “concentrate the attention of the students on the things that are not
known.” This is reminiscent of Plato’s via negativa or apophatia which negates the mind of
positive affirmation of things known so that one can approach the object of inquisition
noetically. To paraphrase some of the scientists already quoted, Thomas and I might be
Teaching Science…
19
suggesting that we bring our students to the shore of knowledge so that they can wonder at the
ocean of Beauty and mystery that laps at the feet.
Wonder—the word comes from the Old English word, wundor, which meant a
"marvelous thing, marvel, the object of astonishment" (Harper, 2001). This is the mind’s
response to Beauty and it is an ethical stance of humility towards the transcendent evident within
the immanent. It is an acknowledgement of the limitations of our epistemologies and of the
inherent mystery of things. It is the wisdom to stop probing with our methodologies and
instruments, if only for a moment, in order to listen and allow things to reveal themselves as they
are.
David Blades, Associate Dean for Teacher Education and Director, Centre for Excellence
in Teaching and Understanding Science, University of Victoria in British Columbia has made a
similar recommendation (Blades, 2006). He advocates a science instruction based on the
philosophy of Emmanual Levinas whereby we do not learn about the Other, but from the face of
the Other. Face (in Greek, prosopon) is a heavily laden philosophical term implying a relational
ontology that is subject and object face each other in an ontological/epistemological epiphany
(Yannaris, 1996, p. 21-22). Blades suggests that a new ethic evolves when science learns from
the world (Other) and not just about the world.
In Lessons of Solitude: The Awakening of Aesthetic Sensibility, Professor of Philosophy
at Stonehill College, Angelo Caranfa has argued for a similar pedagogy of the tacit in which
philosophers and artists have taught us “to be silent so that we may listen and open ourselves to
the voices of the world around us. They remind us that to be quiet is to embrace a world that is
indescribable and beyond thought. In these figures, to be silent is a means by which the senses
and the faculties are brought into a harmonious unity with the transcendent Other…” (Caranfa,
Teaching Science…
20
2007, p.125). This is very reminiscent of Plato’s noetic apprehension of the Good, the True and
the Beautiful.
Have there been efforts to explicitly incorporate a pedagogy of the Beautiful in Science
Education? Yes, although a review of the literature indicates this is a fertile field for research.
One of the few studies done in this area was performed by Mark Girod from the Department of
Education at Western Oregon University. He conducted a study in which an aesthetical
pedagogy was introduced to fourth grade students in their science instruction. He and his
colleagues reported that interviews of students indicated a favorable response to the introduction
of ideas of beauty in science. They discuss one of the students as follows:
“Bright and bubbly, Brieana’s learning typifies aesthetic understanding. ‘Most people
think rocks are. . . just junk. Most people think rocks are all the same and not
interesting. Most people don’t think about their stories’” (Girod, 2002, p. 10).
Brieana’s choice of words “their stories” is evidence of an encounter with, in the phraseology of
Levinas, “the face of the Other.” If this can be experienced in rocks which according to our
young aesthetician is viewed by many as “just junk” how much more so in a galaxy or a
flagellum? What stories can they potentially tell our young people?
Is teaching science in the context of the True, the Good, and the Beautiful too far fetched
in a cultural driven by technological utilitarianism? The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education
reports that one high school is Israel does not think so.
“The goal of the Israel Arts and Science Academy (IASA) is to graduate well-educated,
deeply committed, independent learners who will apply their girls in the arts and
sciences to the betterment of the human condition. The Greek ideal of the unity of truth,
beauty, and goodness serves as the central curricular force. At the Israel Arts and
Sciences Academy, excellence emerges from the interrelationship of scientific and
artistic education, performed in an engaging context of values and morality” (Erez,
2001).
Teaching Science…
21
Has IASA demonstrated evidence that this approach to science education has yielded discernable
benefits? The authors claim that it is too early to tell. Yet, they are committed to the philosophy
upon which they established the academy:
“We believe that, to nurture excellence, it is not enough only to foster students'
intellectual skills. It is also necessary to include social skills, ethics, and values by
integrating those into the academic study program. In that way, the three notions of
truth, beauty, and good are combined into one educational program that strives to
develop excellence in young people for their own good and for the good of the society
where they live and grow” (Erez, 2001).
This is an objective, I believe, that all educators would find worthy to embrace.
Instruction: A Model of the Human Atom
Few students are exposed to formal instruction in philosophy in secondary school as
evidenced by the scant number of articles available on this topic. This is further evidenced by
the fact that it wasn’t until 1994, that a school district in North America even authorized the
teaching of philosophy at the high school level (York University). Since then, school districts
have added Philosophy courses to their list of approved electives, but these are rarely offered at
the school site. Consequently, students have little to no prior knowledge of philosophy on which
to connect or build when discussing issues such as beauty, the nature of being, how we know, or
our responsibility towards the Other.
There is also considerable misunderstanding among students and teachers regarding the
nature of science both in its strengths and limitations (McComas, 1998). Misconceptions such as
the reduction of science to scientism is due in part to a lack of instruction in both the nature of
science and philosophy (McComas, 1997; St. Pierre, 2006). Furthermore, there are myths
regarding the nature of science that scientists and science teacher willingly or unwillingly
perpetuate. These myths include: (1) that science is identifiable with method, (2) that method is
Teaching Science…
22
the criteria of truth, (3) that good science can only be practiced when it functions autonomously,
that is, independent of other epistemologies and authoritative social institutions, (4) that science
is right, (5) that science is the best and consequently the only way that Nature should be
discussed within the Public Square, and (6) that the methodological assumption of material
causes necessitates ontological materialism (see A Defense of an Aesthetical Pedagogy of
Science through an Examination and Refutation of the Mythology of Science.) Those who have
incorporated these myths into their understanding of the nature of science will likely be resistant
to the idea that there is anything that science can learn from such esoteric endeavors as
philosophy and metaphysics. The lack of philosophical knowledge, misconceptions, and myths
regarding the nature of science makes it difficult for both science educators and students of
science to perceive the appropriate nexus of classical aesthetics and philosophy to science.
“Why Study Classical Aesthetics and Philosophy in Science?” is a brief instructional unit
that was presented to students at the beginning of the study to address some of the
aforementioned obstacles while attempting to establish the legitimacy of teaching science in the
context of classical aesthetics. The instruction will not be didactic, but will rather present
students alternative points of views (often those of noted scientists) regarding the nature of
science. Students are expected to understand and reflect on the alternative perspectives of
science presented.
Several years ago I had the opportunity to teach a Philosophy class for the Science
Magnet (RSM) where I am employed as a teacher. Although the class covered a broad spectrum
of topics ranging from the philosophy of the Pre-Socratics to the Post-Modern Deconstructionists
it was only natural that there was an emphasis on the history and philosophy of science both
because of the context of being a Science Magnet class, but also because I am a science teacher.
Teaching Science…
23
What I quickly discovered was that while students enter secondary school classes with previous
knowledge in social studies, science, math, and language arts they have virtually no experience
with either the vocabulary or the ideas of philosophy. To facilitate their acquisition and
understanding of philosophical terms and ideas I began working on a concept map which I
called, A Model of the Human Atom. Although I have not had the opportunity to teach this class
again I have tried to incorporate a measure of philosophical discussion in my science classes.
Students have expressed their interest and appreciation for these brief discussions of philosophy
and have remarked that what they learned benefited them not only in their understanding of
science and nature but in their other classes as well. As a result of this positive feedback I began
to increase the amount of philosophy (particularly those topics relevant to science) in my
instruction after the students had completed their AP and state and federal standardized exams.
These experiences help lay the foundation for the curricular approach that I would use during my
Action Research Project.
A Model of the Human Atom has undergone a major revision for the purposes of this
Action Research Project. The concept map was constructed so that the human nucleus is
surrounded by three hexagonal orbitals: the Beautiful (Ontology), the True (Epistemology), and
the Good (Ethics). The orbitals are interconnected suggesting, as with classical philosophy, the
interrelationship of the Transcendentals. Each of the hexagonal orbitals has six suborbitals that
contain a pair of antinomies (analogous to the fourth quantum number, ms, the spin quantum
number which states that electrons that occupy the same orbital must spin in opposite directions).
Antinomies are ubiquitous in human experience. In philosophy they are evident as in the
coinincedentia oppositorum of Nicholas of Cusa, a philosopher of the Late Middle Ages, and the
binaries of the post-modern deconstructionist, Jacques Derrida; in religion there is the ying-yang
Teaching Science…
24
and god-man, and in science there is the wave-particle duality of matter. Philosophers,
theologians, and an increasing number of scientists recognize that antinomies cannot be resolved
through reason alone; rather resolution may be achieved in a moment of noetic apprehension.
Antinomies can provide students with opportunities to reflect tacitly so as to experience noetic
moments with the True, the Good, and the Beautiful. Note that the Nucleus remains undefined in
this model, because it is highly personalistic in that it is shaped by the individual’s philosophy,
faith, culture, and life-experiences.
The discussion of each antinomy will be preceded by several prompts that may include a
quote, poem, picture, video, or sound file. They will receive an initial survey prior to instruction
that will give them an opportunity to reflect on the prompt and antimony. Their responses to this
survey should reflect their pre-existing knowledge and attitudes towards the particular antinomy.
Teaching Science…
25
They will complete the same survey after instruction which will provide them (and myself) an
opportunity to reflect upon their attitudinal and intellectual development with respect to each
antinomy. It is hoped that this will provide evidence of “evolving knowledge and attitude” as
well as the employment of the “language of Classical Aesthetics.”
Summary
This discussion has articulated the suggestions of both scientists and philosophers who
have called for a radical re-conceptualization of the Nature of Science and how scientists do
science. Discovery is not always a linear application of reason following precise methodologies.
Rather, it is often chaotic and confused punctuated by noetic burst of insight—albeit to be
subsequently confirmed through rigorous method. Discovery can also be an encounter with
Beauty when Nature is perceived not as the “object” of our investigation but as the Other of our
wonderment. The aim of this Action Research Project is far less ambitious than this reconceptualization of Science. It seeks only to establish whether students will recognize the
legitimate value of learning science in the context of classical aesthetics and whether they will
demonstrate a growth in aesthetical and philosophical knowledge while incorporating the
language of these domains as a result of explicit instruction employing A Model of the Human
Atom. Nevertheless, if a re-conceptualization of Science were to occur it would likely begin with
the next generation of scientists—those who perceive the legitimate value of learning science in
the context of classical aesthetics and who can demonstrate an ability and willingness to acquire
the knowledge and language of this domain.
Teaching Science…
26
METHODOLOGY
Participants
The Action Research was conducted in my fourth period AP Chemistry class. The class
consists of sixteen students. The majority of the students were 16 years of age and in the 11th
grade. The average GPA of the students was 3.73. Approximately two-thirds of the class had a
3.8 or higher GPA. The students were ethnically diverse, with significant representations from
the Filipino, Caucasian, and Indian communities. Nearly all students claimed a religious
affiliation although a quarter of them admitted to not actively participating in religious practices.
One student identified herself as an atheist. The majority of the students plan to enter a science
and technology related major and career.
All but one of the students who participated in the study are enrolled in a Science Magnet
(RSM) program. The RSM has an academically challenging program requiring four years of
science and math, and three years of foreign language. The RSM’s projected API is 927. 100%
of our graduates go on to college; approximately 90% matriculate to four-year universities while
the remaining 10% attend community colleges with the expectation of transferring to a UC or
private university.
Table 1: Demographic Breakdown of Participants
ID
40891
20790
71191
70590
32191
61191
30291
90591
123191
70991
42491
40691
102192
Age
Gender
Grade
GPA
Ethnicity
Religious Affiliation
16
17
16
17
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
15
F
M
F
F
M
F
F
F
F
M
M
F
M
11
12
11
12
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
3.23
3.91
3.96
3.05
3.10
3.39
3.71
4.20
4.03
4.03
3.79
3.98
4.18
Filipino
Hispanic
Filipino
Nat American
Caucasian
Indian
Filipino
Caucasian
Caucasian
Indian
Indian
Asian
Asian
Christian np*
Christian np
Christian
Christian
Muslim np
Sikh
Christian np
Jewish
atheist
Scientology
Muslim
Christian
Hindu
Possible College
Major
Business
Science
Science
Science
Engineering
Science
Science
Undecided
Science
Engineering
Engineering
Science
Science
Teaching Science…
ID
Age
Gender
Grade
GPA
Ethnicity
Religious Affiliation
71891
16
M
11
3.88
Caucasian
10991
17
F
11
3.95
Filipino
122690
17
M
11
3.25
Filipino
* np = non practicing (do not consider themselves atheist or agnostic)
Jewish
Christian
Christian
27
Possible College
Major
Undecided
Science
Engineering
Table 2: Summary Demographics of Participants
Age
15: 1
16: 11
17: 4
18: 0
Gender
F:
M:
9
7
Grade
11: 14
12: 2
GPA
3.8>
3.5-3.7:
3.0-3.4
≤2.9:
Ave. =
Ethnicity
10
1
5
0
3.73
Nat. Amer:
Hispanic:
Asian:
Indian:
Caucasian:
Filipino:
1
1
1
4
4
5
Religious
Affiliation
Hindu:
1
Sikh:
1
Jewish:
2
Muslim:
2
Christian: 8
Other:
2
% np =
25
College Major
Business:
Engineering:
Science:
Undecided:
1
4
9
1
Materials
The instructional materials employed during the study were PowerPoint presentations on
the following topics (1) Why Study Classical Aesthetics and Philosophy in Science? and, (2) A
Model of the Human Atom. The purpose of the first presentation was to justify the explicit
instruction of Classical Aesthetics and Philosophy in a Science class. The Model of the Human
Atom (MHA) is designed to introduce students to aesthetical and philosophical principles while
providing them opportunities to reflect on their relationship to science and other domains of
knowledge and human experience. The MHA divided Classical Aesthetics and Philosophy into
three domains: The Beautiful (Ontology), The True (Epistemology), and The Good (Ethics).
Each domain, in turn, was divided into six antinomies. The PowerPoint presentation provided
instructional content that explicated each antinomy through the incorporation of text, graphics,
video, and sound files.
The study employed student surveys as the primary measuring device. An PreInstruction Survey (Appendix A) was completed by each participant to assess his or her
knowledge and attitude regarding the nature of being and Beauty (ontology), how we know and
Teaching Science…
28
criteria of truth (epistemology), and how we are to behave (ethics). At the conclusion of the
study each student completed this same survey again.
To introduce an antinomy, the students were shown a prompt which may have included a
poem, quote, an excerpt from literature, a video and/or sound file. Students were then given an
antinomy specific survey (Appendix B). The survey asked them to reflect on the prompt and to
respond to several questions related to topics that would be addressed by the antinomy. Over
the course of about a week to two weeks we examined the particular antinomy. At the end of
instruction the students completed the same antinomy specific survey.
At the conclusion of the study, the students were asked to respond to the following
prompt, “Was this program [learning science in the context of classical aesthetics] beneficial?
Why?” They were asked not to place their names on their papers. This Anonymous Free
Response survey, as well as the other data collection tools, were used to answer each of the three
research questions thereby providing triangulation of results.
Procedures
The study was conducted over a four-month (15 week) period of time from the first week
of school in September to the beginning of Winter Break in the middle of December.
Approximately ten minutes of instruction in Classical Aesthetics and Philosophy occurred three
times a week at the beginning of the class period. This represents approximately 7½ hours of
instruction or nine class periods over the course of the study.
An initial survey was taken at the beginning of the study. At the beginning of each
instructional unit the student completed a unit specific survey. At the end of the unit the students
completed the same survey in order to measure change in attitude and growth in knowledge.
Five (of sixteen) units were completed by the end of the study for a total of ten unit surveys. At
Teaching Science…
29
the end of the study the students completed a final survey which was identical to the survey
taken at the beginning of the survey. The student participants completed a total of 12 surveys by
the end of the study.
Analysis
The surveys sought to measure (1) if students recognized the legitimacy of learning
science in the context of classical aesthetics, and (2) if there was demonstrable growth in
aesthetical knowledge with (3) incorporation of the language of aesthetics and philosophy in
their understanding and description of nature and the nature of science. To this end, the surveys
collected both quantitative and qualitative data. Questions from the initial and final surveys were
compared to measure changes in attitude, knowledge, and the incorporation of aesthetical and
philosophical language. Qualitative data was coded so that it, along with the quantitative data,
could be tabulated and represented graphically so that patterns and trends would be more readily
recognizable. Bar and pie graphs were constructed and interpreted from data obtained from each
assessment tool. Sample student responses were included as supportive evidence of the coding
of qualitative data and of the interpretation of the collective data.
Teaching Science…
Triangulation of Data
30
Teaching Science…
31
FINDINGS
This action research project set out to answer three questions: (1) Will students recognize
the legitimate value of learning science in the context of Classical Aesthetics?
(2) Will students demonstrate a growth in aesthetical and philosophical knowledge particularly
as it pertains to nature and the nature of science? (3) Will students begin to incorporate the
language of Classical Aesthetics in their understanding and descriptions of nature and the nature
of science? The research project employed an Initial/Final (also referred to as the Pre-Post
Instructional) Survey, a series of Antinomy Questionnaires, and an Anonymous Free-Response
Survey to provide triangulated results on each of the above questions. A complete analysis of
these results can be found in the Appendixes: Pre-Post Instructional Survey (Appendix C),
Antinomy Questionnaire (Appendix D), and the Anonymous Free-Response Survey (Appendix
E). Summary results of these research tools are used in the discussion that follows.
Question 1: Will students recognize the legitimate value of learning science in the context of
Classical Aesthetics?
To answer this question the surveys and questionnaires attempted to measure the change
in student’s “attitude” regarding the value of incorporating aesthetics and philosophy into science
instruction. The results are summarized below.
The data indicates that there was an approximate 37 percent increase in the number of
students who believed that aesthetical and philosophical instruction in science was of value.
Along with this there was a 23 percent decline in the number of students who thought that this
was either irrelevant or a bad idea to include aesthetics & philosophy in science instruction. 40
percent of the participants did not demonstrate a change their attitude. See Chart 1 on the
following page.
Teaching Science…
32
Chart 1: Pre-Post Instruction
Survey
Change in Attitude
50
36.7
40
40
Percent
30
20
Positive
No Change
Negative
10
0
-10
-20
-23.3
-30
Change
Participants in the study received instruction on five ontological antinomies. Prior to
instruction they completed a questionnaire; then after several days of instruction they retook the
questionnaire. Their responses were compared noting the change in attitude that may or may not
have occurred regarding the value and relevance of this particular antinomy to their
understanding of science. On average, 30 percent of the students found the discussion of
ontological antinomies valuable and relevant while 69 percent did not register any change in
attitude towards the information presented to them. One student stated that they thought that the
information was of no value and irrelevant to his/her understanding of science. See Chart 2
below.
Chart 2: Antinomy Questionnaires
Average Change in Attitude (post-instruction)
1%
30%
positive
no change
negative
69%
At the end of the project the participants were asked to respond to the following question:
"Was this [learning science in the context of classical aesthetics] a valuable experience? Why?"
Teaching Science…
33
They were asked to keep their responses anonymous although several did include their names. A
remarkable 88 percent said that it was a valuable experience while 12 percent did not register a
change in attitude regarding its value. Although none of the students expressed a negative
attitude regarding the experience, one of the participants expressed uncertainty. She based this
on the fact that although she thought it was “somewhat” beneficial to learn about other
philosophies and beliefs this was negated by the fact that she had not changed her opinion on any
of the matters discussed. See Chart 3 below.
Chart 3: Anonymous Free-Response
Attitude Regarding Value of Teaching Science
in the Context of Classical Aesthetics
12%
0%
Positive
Neutral
Negative
88%
Table 3: Sample Student Reponses
Attitude Regarding the Value of Teaching of Science in the Context of Classical Aesthetics
Pre-Post Instruction Survey
• "I think students would have greater appreciation for science if they understood the beauty of it. Then, I think
that would make them more motivated to learn science and do well in the class."
• "I think science would be more interesting if we saw it through the context of the True, the Good, and the
Beautiful."
• "Beauty is an important part of science; some organisms that are beautiful should not be messed with, example
of the oyster." [Oyster reference related to researchers who discovered the oldest living thing but had destroyed it
in the process of discovering it.]
• "Beauty might not be what people think of first when it comes to science, but I think it has a fairly important
significance. I mean, if you think something is beautiful and are at awe by it, wouldn't you want to learn more
about it?"
• "It is important to see the big picture of science and the simplicity of scientific findings/implications and how
they fit in. The beauty is that it all works and that we're here to study it."
• [Should beauty be included in science instruction?] "It should because it helps us appreciate and therefore
understand our world around us."
Antinomy Questionnaires
• "I feel that it is amazing how an artist can take tiny dots and lay them together to make something great.
[referring to a painting by Seurat]. It is the same concept as the orchestra. If the dots are not organized, the many
turning into one is not going to work to the fullest extent. I had never realized that pictures and everything in the
world are made up of tiny things, or "ones" whether they be pixels or atoms, etc."
• "While the idea of a supreme being is sometimes hard to accept...I think the "proof" is in the beauty, [and]
complexity of nature."
Teaching Science…
34
Anonymous Free-Response
• "This was extremely valuable for may reasons. It opened up science in a new way for me to incorporate
philosophy and freedom of thought into the scientific field which I had previously considered really strict."
• "I see everything differently now. I also use this stuff in other classes to help explain unclear things."
• "It has allowed me to view science in a different context."
• "I learned a lot and took my mind to places I didn't even knew exist."
• "It taught me to look at the paradoxes, which I probably would not have thought about before, and thought about
the necessity of an equilibrium between the two. Our world consists of paradoxes that coexist to make our world
possible."
• "By giving Beauty a chance, I hope to be more open-minded."
• "You get to appreciate the beauty within science and science is not all about trying to find an answer."
• "I think that they should teach this because it helps students understand the true meaning of beauty in science."
• "I would like to continue to learn this subject. It was very interesting and enlightening."
• "It helped me on the '07 SAT prompt."
• "At first I wasn't paying attention but...I actually began to appreciate the beauty within philosophy. I didn't even
know some of the ideas we learned even existed."
• "It is very relevant to my life and crucial for my understanding and appreciation of nature."
• "Yes. It was because it gave me a chance to think about things I've never really thought about. It has opened
my mind to new ideas and even changed my point of view about certain things."
• "Was this a valuable experience?—somewhat. Why?—It is nice to know about all the philosophy, and
philosophers, and beliefs. Why not?—My opinions did not change."
Question 2: Will students demonstrate a growth in aesthetical and philosophical knowledge
particularly as it pertains to nature and the nature of science?
The three tools that were used to answer this question were the Initial/Final Survey, the
Antinomy Questionnaires, and the Anonymous Free-Response Survey. The complete analyses
of these tools are provided in Appendices. The results that follow summarize these findings.
The data indicates that there was an approximate 35 percent increase in the knowledge
gained by students as a result of instruction. 65 percent of the students did not demonstrate an
increase in this knowledge domain as evinced by the survey. See Chart 4 below.
Chart 4: Pre-Post Instruction
Survey
% Acquisition of Aesthetical/
35%
Positive
No Change
65%
Teaching Science…
35
Participants in the study received instruction on five ontological antinomies. Prior to
instruction they completed a questionnaire; then after several days of instruction they retook the
questionnaire. Their responses were compared noting the increase in knowledge that may or may
not have occurred with respect to this particular antinomy relative to their understanding of
science. On average, 49 percent of the students demonstrated an acquisition of knowledge while
51percent did not demonstrate a measurable increase in knowledge. See Chart 5 below.
Chart 5: Antinomy Questionnaires
Average Acquisition of
Aesthetical/
Philosophical Knowledge
49%
51%
positive
no change
At the end of the project the participants were asked to respond to the following question:
"Was this [learning science in the context of classical aesthetics] a valuable experience? Why?"
They were asked to keep their responses anonymous although several did include their names.
88 percent claimed that they had learned something from the experience. Only twelve percent of
the respondents made no indication that they had learned something from the experience. No
one expressed a negative view regarding the instruction or that it had hindered his or her learning
of science. See Chart 6 on the following page.
Teaching Science…
36
Chart 6: Anonymous Free-Response Survey
Participants Claiming Knowledge Gained as a
Result of Teaching Science in the Context of
Classical Aesthetics
12%
0%
Positive
Neutral
Negative
88%
Table 4: Sample Student Reponses
Demonstration of Growth in Knowledge in Aesthetics and Philosophy
Pre-Post Instruction Survey
• "Science and intuition reveal different truths to humanity, and together, they form a holistic understanding."
• "I learned a lot of things that might affect my decisions in the future. Before I would think that if someone sees
beauty in what I think is ugly, I would assume that he is weird and out of this world. But now I consider the fact
that the beauty of the object is no perceptible to me, but to that person."
• "Science and other things can combine to enhance our complete understanding of the world."
• "Science shouldn't take advantage of non-human organisms for the benefit of science."
• "...bioethics and holding science to a standard of morality is important for animals, nature, and the
environment."
• "Beauty exists independent of the subject[s] mind."
Antinomy Questionnaires
• "The symphony was another perfect example of One/Many. Each instrument has its own sound and each player
has her own style, but together, they formed beautiful music. They all play separate and different notes, but
somehow come together to create a lovely melody. Each instrument is an individual but together creates an
orchestra."
• " You take chaos (the unknown) and solve it and write laws to turn it into order."
• "Science is ordered because it is beautiful, therefore there is simplicity and symmetry."
• "Everyone is in perfect unison [Viennese Waltz] which would be enough to drive me crazy. As cool as it is to
look at...I would fall asleep actually experiencing it. There needs to be a balance between the two extremes of
order and chaos."
• "This idea—or a generation of people who seem to believe the world revolves around themselves [the I as
transcendent]—is disturbing. By focusing on the immanent they miss the radiance of the transcendent. The idea
that there is something greater than themselves out there!"
• "Mystery is beauty waiting to be unraveled. The secretive component to mystery is what influences us to gain
to knowledge to that truth within mystery."
• "Mystery is what keeps men honest. Mystery is a safeguard, the watcher of power, it is knowledge's balance."
[In response to, "If knowledge is power, what is Mystery?]
Anonymous Free-Response Survey
• "I see everything differently now. I also use this stuff in other classes to help explain unclear things."
• "It has allowed me to view science in a different context."
• "I learned a lot and took my mind to places I didn't even knew exist."
• "It taught me to look at the paradoxes, which I probably would not have thought about before, and thought about
the necessity of an equilibrium between the two. Our world consists of paradoxes that coexist to make our world
possible."
• "By giving Beauty a chance, I hope to be more open-minded."
• "You get to appreciate the beauty within science and science is not all about trying to find an answer."
• "It helped me on the '07 SAT prompt."
Anonymous Free-Response Survey (continued)
Teaching Science…
37
• "At first I wasn't paying attention but...I actually began to appreciate the beauty within philosophy. I didn't even
know some of the ideas we learned even existed."
• "It is very relevant to my life and crucial for my understanding and appreciation of nature."
• "Yes. It was because it gave me a chance to think about things I've never really thought about. It has opened
my mind to new ideas and even changed my point of view about certain things."
Question 3: Will students begin to incorporate the language of Classical Aesthetics in their
understanding and descriptions of nature and the nature of science?
The three tools that were used to answer this question were the Initial/Final Survey, the
Antinomy Questionnaires, and the Anonymous Free-Response Survey. The complete analyses
of these tools are provided in Appendices. The results that follow summarize these findings.
The data indicates that there was an approximate 47 percent increase in the employment
of domain specific vocabulary gained by students as a result of instruction. 53 percent of the
students did not demonstrate an increased use of aesthetical/philosophical language in their
survey question responses. See Chart 7.
Chart 7: Pre-Post Instructional Survey
% Demonstrated Use of
Aesthetical/Philosophical Language
47
53
Positive
No Change
Participants in the study received instruction on five ontological antinomies. Prior to
instruction they completed a questionnaire; then after several days of instruction they retook the
questionnaire. Their responses were compared noting the increase in aesthetical/philosophical
language that they employed while responding to the antinomy questionnaire. On average, 35
percent of the students demonstrated a use of domain specific language while 65 percent did not
demonstrate the use of aesthetical/ philosophical vocabulary. See Chart 8 below.
Teaching Science…
38
Chart 8: Antinomy Questionnaires
Average Demonstration of
Aesthetical/Philosopical Language
in Questionnaire Responses
35
positive
no change
65
At the end of the project the participants were asked to respond to the following question:
"Was this [learning science in the context of classical aesthetics] a valuable experience? Why?"
They were asked to keep their responses anonymous although several did include their names.
25 percent of the students responded by employing terminology that was domain specific to
aesthetics and philosophy or at least using terminology that they were unlikely to have used in
this context prior to instruction. 75 percent of the students did not use domain specific language
in their response to this question. See Chart 9 on the following page.
Chart 9: Anonymous Free Reponse Survey
Demonstrated use of Language of Aesthetics and
Philosophy in Free Reponse Survey
0%
25%
Positive
Neutral
Negative
75%
Table 5: Sample Student Reponses
Demonstration of the use of the Language Aesthetics and Philosophy
Pre-Post Instructional Survey
• "It is important to see the big picture of science and the simplicity of scientific findings/implications and they fit
Teaching Science…
39
in. The beauty is that it all works and that we're here to study it all. Also, bioethics and holding science to a
standard of morality is important for animals, nature, and the environment."
• "This actually helped me in my other classes. I talked about noesis in English when we read a story about an
out-of-body experience."
• "Beauty might not be what people think of first when it comes to science, but I think it has a fairly important
significance. I mean, if you think something is beautiful and are in awe by it, wouldn't you want to learn more
about it?"
• "Science and intuition reveal different truths to humanity, and together, they form a holistic understanding."
• "Before I would think that if someone sees beauty in what I think is ugly, I would assume that he is weird and
out of this world. But now I consider the fact that the beauty of the object is not perceptible to me, but to that
person."
Antinomy Questionnaires
• "I feel that it is amazing how an artist can take tiny dots and lay them together to make something great.
[referring to a painting by Seurat]. It is the same concept as the orchestra. If the dots are not organized, the many
turning into one is not going to work to the fullest extent. I had never realized that pictures and everything in the
world are made up of tiny things, or "ones" whether they be pixels or atoms, etc."
• "Science is ordered because it is beautiful, therefore there is simplicity and symmetry."
• "You take nothing (chaos) (mediums, canvas, clay, graphite) and turn it into something beautiful (order)."
• "I have experienced the transcendent in a piece of music, and when I was listening to it, it seems like the whole
worlds stops to listen to this song. The music was beautiful. The harmony of the instruments, the symmetry of
the beats and the radiance of the lyrics made it beautiful. It made me feel alive and it moved me. For some it was
just an ordinary song."
• "Mystery is beauty waiting to be unraveled. The secretive component to mystery is what influences us to gain
to knowledge to that truth within mystery."
• "Mystery is what keeps men honest. Mystery is a safeguard, the watcher of power, it is knowledge's balance."
Response to Red Violin video clip:
"Jackson [actor who played the violin appraiser] accepted the violin in all its mystery, but the scientist did not
accept it. He wanted to become more knowledgeable of it."
• "Jackson accepts the violin for what it is and he doesn't know what to do with it. The scientist is only in it for
the knowledge and he wants to break it apart to find its secrets.... They make a choice between a perfect violin or
the destruction of it to find out how it works."
Anonymous Free-Response
• "It taught me to look at the paradoxes, which I probably would not have thought about before, and thought about
the necessity of an equilibrium between the two. Our world consists of paradoxes that coexist to make our world
possible."
• "You get to appreciate the beauty within science and science is not all about trying to find an answer."
DISCUSSION
Overview of Study
The purpose of the study was to examine whether students would recognize the value of
learning science in the context of classical aesthetics, and demonstrate aesthetical knowledge
while incorporating the language of aesthetics and philosophy in their understanding and
descriptions of nature and the nature of science.
Teaching Science…
40
The results of this study were obtained over a four month period during which students
received explicit instruction regarding the philosophy of aesthetics and its relationship to nature
and science. Prior to this instruction all participants of the study completed a Pre-Instruction
Survey. Prior to each instructional unit (antinomy) students completed an Antinomy
Questionnaire. After the completion of the instructional unit the students completed the
questionnaire again. A total of five instructional units were completed over the duration of the
study. At the end of the study period the students completed the first Survey (Post-Instruction)
again. Students were then asked to write an anonymous response to the question, “Was this
[learning science in the context of classical aesthetics] a valuable experience? Why?”
Summary of Findings
Three questions were asked by this study. The first question asked if students would
recognize the value of incorporating aesthetics (and related philosophical concepts) into their
science instruction. The Pre-Post Instructional Survey demonstrated an increase of 36.7% in
students expressing a positive attitude towards aesthetics instruction. Concomitant with this
there was a 23.3% decline in those students who had a negative attitude regarding this
instruction. The summary of the Antinomy Questionnaires indicated an average change of 30%
improvement of attitude regarding aesthetic instruction with the majority (69%) demonstrating
no change in attitude compared to pre-instruction. Finally, there was dramatic support for
aesthetic instruction in the Anonymous Free-Response Survey with 88% of the students stating
that they believe the instruction was a valuable experience; as one student stated, “This was
extremely valuable for many reasons. It opened up science in a new way for me to incorporate
philosophy and freedom of thought into the scientific field which I had previously considered
really strict.”
Teaching Science…
41
The second question asked if students would demonstrate the acquisition of
aesthetical/philosophical knowledge as a result of instruction in the context of their science class.
The Pre-Post Instructional Survey demonstrated a 35% increase aesthetical/philosophical
knowledge gained by students during the duration of the study. The Antinomy Questionnaires
yielded a higher average result of 49% for knowledge acquisition. This may be due to the more
specific nature of the antinomy questions which may have given students more opportunity to
demonstrate knowledge acquisition. Finally, in the Anonymous Free-Response Survey, 88% of
the students claimed that they had learned something from the experience. As one student stated,
“…it gave me a chance to think about things I’ve never really thought about. It has opened my
mind to new ideas and even changed my point of view about certain things.”
The third and final question considered whether or not students would begin to
incorporate the language of aesthetics and philosophy. Language was measured not only by the
use of domain-specific terminology, but also by the utilization of phrases that connote ideas that
are unique to aesthetics and philosophy. The Pre-Post Instructional Survey demonstrated an
increase of 47% in the use of the language of aesthetics as a result of instruction. The average
results of the Antinomy Questionnaires showed a slightly lower percentage of 35% for the
inclusion of aesthetical language. Only 25% of the students demonstrated
aesthetical/philosophical language in the answer to the Anonymous Free-Response Survey. It is
not surprising that the students did not employ aesthetical language to the extent that they
demonstrated knowledge given the fact that use of domain-specific language is a higher order
skill. Nevertheless, students did demonstrate this ability as evinced by these responses to the
Knowable/Mystery antinomy: “Mystery is beauty waiting to be unraveled. The secretive
component to mystery is what influences us to gain to knowledge to that truth within mystery,”
Teaching Science…
42
and “Mystery is what keeps men honest. Mystery is a safeguard, the watcher or power, it is
knowledge’s balance.”
Conclusion
It has been suggested in this Action Research Project that Beauty is a criterion of truth in
science. When hypotheses and theories are beautiful they are so because they reflect the
ontological Beauty present within Nature. According to Classical Aesthetics, this Beauty holds
within herself Mystery which reminds us of the limits of our epistemologies (including science)
while transfiguring our inquiry from an investigation of an object to an epiphany of the Other.
This is a radical re-conceptualization of the Nature of Science—one that many scientists may
believe is unnecessary or counterproductive, because they have either identified science with
scientism or have been inculcated into an understanding of science based, in part, on
misconception and myth.
The next generation of scientists may be more open to challenging the Baconian axiom of
Science: Scientia est Potentia—Knowledge is Power; that the goal of science is the
empowerment of man through the manipulation of nature. But, Beauty cannot be possessed,
only safeguarded. And it is only with the utmost care and humility that we should ever consider
manipulating Her. Would we dare to complete Schubert’s Unfinished Symphony? What would
happen if someone entered the National Gallery and attempted to finish Leonardo da Vinci’s
uncompleted painting, “The Virgin and Child with St. Anne and St. John the Baptist”? Yet,
scientists are pushing headlong into the manipulation of genomes—the material manifestation of
Beauty’s formal cause as a Classical Aesthetician might characterize DNA. Do these scientists
expect that genomic manipulations will produce organisms that will possess more unity,
harmony, symmetry, and wholeness than they did formally? Will they be more radiant? Does
Teaching Science…
43
any one care or think that these are questions worthy of asking? The statement made by the
students participating in this study indicates that a new generation of scientists may be ready for
a re-conceptualization of science.
Remember the student who said, “It opened up science in a new way for me to
incorporate philosophy and freedom of thought into the scientific field which I had previously
considered really strict.” Here, we begin to see an openness to re-conceptualizing science; one
willing to consider the value of incorporating aesthetically and philosophical ideas into what was
formally believed to be “really strict.” Additionally, students recognized the value of learning
science in the context of classical aesthetics and what a science informed by this perspective
might look like, “I think students would have greater appreciation for science if they understood
the beauty of it. Then, I think that would make them more motivated to learn science and do
well in class.” They also began to perceive that a new, more modest, science might emerge from
being informed by Beauty. “You get to appreciate the beauty within science and science is not all
about trying to find an answer.” What is science then, if it is not all about trying to find an
answer? Perhaps it is more than taking Francis Bacon’s inquisitional stance to force nature to
reveal her secrets:
“The secret workings of nature do not reveal themselves to one who simply
contemplates the natural flow of events. It is when nature is tormented by art, when
man interferes with nature, vexes nature, tries to make her do what he wants, not what
she wants, that he begins to understand how she works and my hope to learn how to
control her…. It is my intention to bind, and place at your command, nature….”
(Francis Bacon as quoted by Comstock, 2000, p. 139)
Perhaps science, newly configured by Classical Aesthetics, will not approach Nature as an object
to be vexed, tormented, and bound, but as the Other who simply asks of us to be open; as one
student stated, “By giving Beauty a chance, I hope to be more open-minded.” And in this
Teaching Science…
44
openness we may encounter Beauty’s mystery which may promote an even greater stimulus to
learn, as observed by the student who said, “Mystery is beauty waiting to be unraveled. The
secretive component to mystery is what influences us to gain to knowledge to that truth within
mystery.” But as another student reflected, mystery is the antinomy of the knowable, Bacon’s
postulated source of power, and as such is its necessary balance: “Mystery is what keeps men
honest. Mystery is a safeguard, the watcher of power, it is knowledge’s balance.” This is a
science that I believe that the next generation is ready, even eager, to embrace.
Recommendation
The favorable response expressed by the students who participated in the study has
encouraged me to continue to develop and expand the curriculum for the inclusion of Classical
Aesthetics in my science courses. Given the content laden agenda due to State Standards and AP
requirements it is anticipated that these discussions will be reserved for the Spring semester after
the May examinations. Although I believe that teaching science in the context of Classical
Aesthetics would be of value in other classroom settings, there are numerous obstacles that
would hinder this from occurring including the lack of perceived relevance by teachers, students,
and administration and the fact that it is difficult to correlate these topic with State Standards.
Nevertheless, I intend to incorporate this Action Research Report and the associated curriculum
into my website so that teachers and students may access it should they wish to examine these
issues.
Limitations of the Study
The original plan was to cover all 18 antinomies of the Model of the Human Atom, but
only five were covered during the duration of the study. This was in part due to the fact that each
Teaching Science…
45
antinomy sparked more discussion than I had originally anticipated. Furthermore, the pressure
of covering all of the topics in the AP curriculum forced me to keep these discussions limited to
about ten minutes several times per week. In addition, I had originally planned to have students
complete the Antinomy Questionnaires in class, but because of time constraints I allowed the
students to take them home. I noticed that on more than one occasion students were quickly
filling them in the next day just before they were due to be turned in. Undoubtedly, this
influenced the quality of the responses offered by these students.
The antinomies discussed belonged only to the first domain of Ontology (the Beautiful)
as a result Epistemology (the True) or Ethics (the Good) were only discussed in passing. The
Initial/Final Survey (Pre-Post Instructional Survey) included questions pertaining to all three
domains. In spite of the minimal coverage in epistemology and ethics a significant number of
students demonstrated a growth in knowledge in these areas. One can only speculate how much
more they would have learned had we had the opportunity to discuss these philosophical
domains in detail.
The students that participated in my study were from my AP Chemistry class. All of
these students had had me the previous year for Honors Chemistry. They are a very bright and
inquisitive group and it was for these reasons that they were chosen. Their responses are
evidence of this. It is possible, perhaps even likely, that another group of students would not
demonstrate the same level of intellectual curiosity or growth in knowledge as did the study
group.
I intend to continue to introduce my science students to Classical Aesthetics in the future.
If I were to continue this study, I would limit the duration of the study to the last month of school
which has become more or less “dead time” as a result of our testing schedule. The curriculum
Teaching Science…
46
could be introduced to a broader range of students and potentially more topics (antinomies) could
be covered since we would not be under the pressure to cover the State Standards at this time.
Furthermore, other teachers may be more open to introduce these ideas to their students during
this time for the reasons mentioned above and because it offers them a ready-made curriculum.
A Final Word
As reported in the Findings, one student response was mixed in regards to the value of
learning science in the context of classical aesthetics; as she stated: “Was this a valuable
experience?—somewhat. Why?—It is nice to know about all the philosophy, and philosophers,
and beliefs. Why not?—My opinions did not change." Was this student different from the others
who participated in the study? The demographic survey indicated that she was—she was the
only student who identified herself as an atheist and a materialist and as such she rejected the
idea of metaphysics, including radiance of form, a central tenant of classical aesthetics.
Nevertheless, during a one-on-one interview with this student she did demonstrate, if not a
change of opinion, an uncertainty regarding science’s ability to perceive the Beautiful.
Two students volunteered to participate in a one-on-one interview. During this interview
with the students (see Appendix F), which coincidentally included the young-lady above, I had
them watch an excerpt of the movie, The Red Violin. The excerpt showed the response of three
characters, a violinist, an appraiser, and an engineer, to the main character of the movie—a red
violin. The violinist did not recognize the beauty of the violin even after he played it (he was
arrogant and smug). The appraiser referred to the violin as, “The perfect marriage of science and
beauty.” The engineer described the violin as the “…single most perfect acoustic machine I have
ever seen.” As the latter two characters discussed the violin, the appraiser asked the rhetorical
question, “What do you do when the thing you most want is so perfect?” He then asked the
Teaching Science…
47
engineer, what appeared to be an irrelevant question, “Do you have children?” “I know what
you mean,” replied the engineer. “I would love to have this baby for myself.” “Really,” the
appraiser responded. “What would you do?” “Take it apart. Find out how it works,” the
engineer replied.
I asked the student who she believed appreciated the violin the most.
“The engineer…he was in awe,” she replied. “I’d say the engineer…. The engineer was
way more into it.”
“What about when the engineer said he wanted to take it apart and the appraiser said, ‘I
don’t think you get it.’ What do you think he meant by that?” I asked.
“Oh. Umm,” the student responded as she thought about the appraiser’s response. “The
appraiser considers it like a living thing, almost. It’s not just a tool that you use,” she continued.
“Given that reflection,” I continued, “do you still stick by your assessment that the
engineer appreciated the violin the most?”
“No.”
“Why?
“A living thing is more valuable than a machine,” she concluded.
The student found herself in a paradoxical position—her paradigm identified her with the
engineer, yet she was able to recognize that the appraiser saw and appreciated a Beauty which
her paradigm could not perceive.
“What do you think the engineer was lacking that the appraiser had?” I asked.
“Children?” she wondered. “Not sure what it is,” she finally conceded.
We pretty much left it at that. Although I may have been able to assist her in the
resolution of this dilemma—I might have suggested that the appraiser viewed the violin not as an
Teaching Science…
48
object, but as the Other, who like children, must be cared for, but are never possessed, must be
disciplined, but with humble love and fearful awe,—but, the objective of my Action Research
Project was not to convince students of the value of teaching science in the context of classical
aesthetics, rather it was to introduce them to new and perhaps challenging ideas. Our young
materialist was indeed challenged and her uncertainty as to why the appraiser was able to
perceive a Beauty unrecognized by the engineer is reflected in her assessment of the value of
teaching science in the context of classical aesthetics.
“I don’t think you get it,” may be the response of the appraiser to this student and to those
who hold to what, for many, has become the default understanding of how science perceives the
universe. Nevertheless, uncertainty can be an encounter with the mystery of Beauty and this, in
turn, may foster the intellectual humility necessary to recognize the limitations of one’s
epistemologies. Perhaps then, in this moment of uncertainty, the engineer and our young
scientist will stop their probing, if only for a moment, and in the silence of noetic apprehension
perceive the Beauty and Otherness of Nature.
References
Augros, R. & Stanciu, G. (1984) The New Story of Science. Lake Bluff, Ill. Regnery
Gateway.
Blades, D. (2006) Levinas and an Ethics for Science Education, Educational Philosophy
Teaching Science…
49
& Theory; Oct2006, Vol. 38 Issue 5, p647-664,
Caranfa, A. (2007) Lessons of Solitude: The Awakening of Aesthetic Sensibility.
Journal of Philosophy of Education, Vol. 41, No.1, 2007
Chargaff, E. (1987) “Engineering a Molecular Nightmare.” Nature 327
May 21, 1987 p. 199.
Churchill, L (2001) The News & Observer. Retrieved April 3, 2007 from
http://gazette.unc.edu/archives/01apr11/file.18.html
Clarkeburn, H. (2003) Measuring Ethical Development in Life Science Students: a study
using Perry’s developmental model. Studies in Higher Education Vol 28, No. 4 October,
2003 p. 444-456
Comstock, Francis (2000) Vexing Nature?: On the Ethical Case Against Agricultural
Biotechnology. New York, NY: Springer
Dawkins, R. (1995) River out of Eden New York: HarperCollins
de Duve, C. The Future of Life. Retrieved September, 2007 from
http://metanexus.net/Magazine/ArticleDetail/tabid/68/id/2653/Default.aspx
Doucette, J (2007) Scientific Quotes. Retrieved August 10, 2007 from
http://xona.com/quotes/scientific.html
Dubay, T. (1999) The Evidential Power of Beauty. San Francisco, Ca. Ignatius Press.
Einstein, A. "My Credo" 1932. Retrieved September, 2007 from
http://members.aol.com/starpastor/page2.html
Einstein, A. (1931) Living Philosophies. Retrieved February, 2008 from
http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay.htm
Einstein, A. & Infeld, L (1938) The Evolution of Physics New York. Simon and
Schuster
Eisley, L. (1979) Science and the Sense of the Holy, The Star Thrower, New York, NY
Harvest Books
Elliot Institute (2006) In Their Own Words. Retrieved April 3, 2007 from
http://www.elliotinstitute.org/mad.htm
Erez, R. (2001) The Interrelationships among Science, Art, and Values. Journal of
Secondary Gifted Education, 10774610, Fall2001, Vol. 13, Issue 1
Teaching Science…
Fortus, D. (2005) Design-based science and real-world problem-solving. International
Journal of Science Education. Vol 27, No.7. 3 June 2005 pp.855-879
Girod, M. (2007) Appreciating the Beauty of Science Ideas: Teaching for Aesthetic
Understanding Science Education; Jul2003, Vol. 87 Issue 4, p574,
Goodall, J. (2000) A Reason for Hope: A Spiritual Journey. Grand Central Publishing,
Lebanon, IN. Retrieved September, 2007 from
http://members.aol.com/starpastor/page2.html
Guardian (2006) Retrieved on February 2008 from
(http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/profile/story/0,,1698284,00.html)
Goodenough, U. (2000) The Sacred Depths of Nature. USA Oxford University Press
Harper, D. (2001) Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved April 22, 2007 from
http://www.etymonline.com
Heisenberg, W. (1975) “The Meaning of Beauty in the Exact Sciences,” Across the
Frontier. New York. HarperCollins
Josephson Institute (2006) Josephson Institute Report Card on the Ethics of American
Youth: Part One—Integrity Retrieved November 18, 2006 from
http://www.josephsoninstitute.org/reportcard/
Kaplan, S. (2007) Conference: Differentiated Instruction in Science and Math.
Van Nuys, CA January 19, 2007
Kuhn, T. (1996) The Structures of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago. University of Chicago
Press
Lewontin, R. (1997) Billions and Billions of Demons The New York Review Vo. 9
January 1997 p.31
McComas, W. (1998) The Nature of Science in Science Education. Dordreck. Kluwer
Academic
Miller, A. (2006) A Thing of Beauty. New Scientist, Vol. 189, Issue 2537
National Research Council (2000). How People Learn (Expanded Ed) Washington D.C.
National Academy Press
NAS (1996) 2020 Vision: Health in the 21st Century. Retrieved on April 3, 2007 from
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5202&page=108
Penrose, R. (1980) “Black Holes” in The State of the Universe, ed. Geoffrey Bath.
50
Teaching Science…
Oxford. Clarendon Press
Provine, W. (1988) Scientists, Face It! Science and Religion are Incompatible The
Scientists Vo. 5 p10-11 September 1988
Pesic, P. (1999) Wrestling with Proteus: Francis Bacon and the "Torture" of Nature. Isis,
Vol. 90, No. 1 (Mar., 1999), pp. 81-94
Raymo, C. (1997) Honey from the Stone. Ruminator Books. Retrieved September 2007
from http://members.aol.com/starpastor/page2.html
Raymo, C. (1998) Skeptic and True Believers. New York, NY. Walker & Company.
Resnick, M., Berg, R. & Eisenberg, M. (2000) Beyond Black Boxes: Bringing
Transparency and Aesthetics Back to Scientific Investigation. The Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 9(1), 7- 30.
Rice, C. (1995) Fifty Questions on the Natural Law. San Francisco, CA Ignatius Press
Rolston, H. (1999) Genes, Genesis, and God: Values and Their Origins in Natural and
Human History, Cambridge, MA Cambridge University Press
Rorty, R (1995) Untruth and Consequences, The New Republic July 31 1995
Sadler, Troy D (2004) Moral Sensitivity and its Contribution to the Resolution of SocioScientific Issues. The Journal of Moral Education Vo. 33, No. 3, September 2004
St. Pierre, E. (2006) Scientifically Based Research in Education: Epistemology and
Ethics. Adult Education Quarterly. Vol. 56 No. 4 pp. 239-266
Thomas, L (1995) Late Night Thoughts on Listening to Mahler's Ninth Symphony, New
York, NY, Penguin
Thomason, G. (1961) The Inspiration of Science. Oxford. Oxford University Press
von Balsthasar, H. (1982) The Glory of the Lord. Volume 1. San Francisco, CA Ignatius
Press
von Balthasar, H. (1993) My Work in Retrospect. San Francisco, CA Ignatius Press
Yannaras, C. (1996), The Freedom of Morality. Crestwood, NY St. Valdimir’s Seminary
Press
York University. Philosophy at the High School Level. Retrieved in September, 2007
from http://www.arts.yorku.ca/phil/special/highschool.html
51
Teaching Science…
52
Teaching Science…
Appendix A
KD McMahon
Reseda High School
Survey: Teaching Science in the Context of the Good, the True, and the Beautiful
1. Which “target” best represents science’s ability to describe nature:
a. precise, but not
accurate
b. neither precise
nor accurate
c. precise and
accurate
d. precise with
uncertain accuracy
Comment: ____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
2. Which statement do you think best describes science’s ability to discover new
knowledge?
a. It is only a matter of time before that which is unknown will become known.
b. There will always be a limit to what can be known through science.
Comment: ____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
3. Which statement best describes science as one of several possible ways of knowing?
a. Science is the best and truest path to all knowledge.
b. Science is best suited for studying the physical universe. Other ways of
knowing (intuition, faith, mysticism, etc.) may be more appropriate for the
metaphysical universe.
c. Science and other ways of knowing can work together to form a holistic
understanding of the cosmos and human experience.
d. Science and other ways of knowing are antithetical and will always be at odds
with each other.
53
Teaching Science…
Comment: ____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
4. Consider the following statement made by Donna Shalala, Secretary of Health and
Human Services during the Clinton Administration: “Let us ensure that our bioethics
are as sophisticated as our science.” This statement seems to be suggesting that bioethics, and perhaps ethics in general, should be based on science. Which of the
following statements would you agree with:
a. Science gives us the truest picture of what it means to be a human being, and
therefore it is appropriate that ethics be based on science.
b. Religion provides us with the only appropriate guide for human behavior.
c. Ethics is very personalistic. It is not for me to judge what another person
thinks or does with his or her life.
d. Ethics are determined by culture. Whatever a society deems legal or illegal
determines what is right or wrong.
Comment: ____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
5. One type of science is known as “scientific materialism.” It is the position that all
there is is matter and therefore the best way to study and understand everything from
the universe to human is science. One such scientific materialist is evolutionary
biologist, William Provine who stated, “Humans are complex organic machines that
die completely with no survival of soul…. No inherent moral or ethical laws exist, nor
are there absolute guiding principles for human society. The universe cares nothing for
us and we have no ultimate meaning in life.” What type of society do you think would
evolve if an ethic based on scientific materialism was adopted?
a. It would be like John Lennon’s Imagine and the “world would live as one.”
b. Without purpose and “inherent moral or ethical laws” society would collapse
into anarchy.
c. Party!
d. Someone or something would fill the void and impose meaning and structure
one society.
Other/Comment:_______________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
6. Rank in order of importance (most important first) the role of the following in
validating a scientific discovery or hypothesis: (a) experimentation, (b) the
community of professional scientists, (c) beauty, and (d) predictability.
____________________________________________________________________
54
Teaching Science…
7. Which statement below best describes the nature of beauty?
a. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. [This is known as subjective beauty.]
b. Some objects are beautiful whether or not people recognize them as such.
[This is known as objective beauty].
Comment: ____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
8. Scientists have sometimes referred to discoveries as beautiful. For example, Nobel
Prize winning physicist, Richard Feynman, said, “You can recognize truth [of a
scientific discovery or hypothesis] by its beauty and simplicity.” If beauty is
important in the process of science should aesthetics (study of beauty) be included
in your science instruction?
a. yes
b. no
c. only if it helps me do better on the exams
Comment: ____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
9. What this survey has been inquiring about is sometimes referred to as the True, the
Good, and the Beautiful—terminology introduced by the Greek Philosopher, Plato.
These three ideas have developed into the three main branches of philosophy:
Epistemology (how we know), Ethics (how we are to act), and Ontology (the nature
of being). This survey suggests that there is a connection between the Good, the True
and the Beautiful with science. One a scale of 1 to 5 (5 being most relevant, 1 being
completely irrelevant) rank the value of teaching science in the context of the True,
the Good, and the Beautiful.
a. 1
b. 2
c. 3
d. 4
e. 5
Use the space below to make any comments regarding this or any other question asked
in this survey.
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
55
Teaching Science…
56
Appendix B
KD McMahon
Reseda Science Magnet
Name: _______________________
Class: ___________ Date: _______
Something/Nothing
1. Several prompts were shown to you on a PowerPoint presentation. Write about any two of the
prompts. Please identify the prompts you are writing about.
Prompt #1:_______________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
prompt #2: ______________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Teaching Science…
________________________________________________________________________
2. Was there always something or was there a “time” when there was only nothing?
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
3. Can something come from nothing and if so how? _____________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
4. Can something return to nothing and if so how? ______________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
5. If nothing “exists” where is it? ____________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
6. What, if any, relationship is there between nothing and science? _________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
Now read the following quote: “What is it that breathes fire into equations and makes a
universe for them to describe? Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?”
7. What does this statement mean to you? _____________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
8. Do you think learning about the something/nothing antinomy is worthwhile?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
57
Teaching Science…
58
KD McMahon
Reseda Science Magnet
Name: _______________________
Class: ___________ Date: _______
One/Many
1. Several prompts were shown to you on a PowerPoint presentation. Write about any two of the
prompts. Please identify the prompts you are writing about.
Prompt #1:_______________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
prompt #2: ______________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Teaching Science…
59
1. Do you think that there is one thing or idea that links everything together?
a. Yes
b. No
If you answered, “yes,” what do you think it is and why? _______________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
2. Can you think of an example(s) of this One/Many antinomy in:
a. science: _____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
b. religion: ____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
c. politics/society: ______________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
d. art: ________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
4. Read the following quote from the philosopher, Frederick Nietzsche: “Greek philosophy
seems to begin with a preposterous fancy, with the proposition that water is the origin and
mother-womb of all things. Is it really necessary to stop there and become serious? Yes…
because in it is contained, although in the chrysalis state, the idea— Everything is One.”
Nietzsche sees philosophy emerging from the “chrysalis” of the paradox between the
One/Many antinomy. What, if any, thoughts do you have on this?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5. Now read the following quote from physicist and Nobel Laureate, Richard Feynman, “You
can recognize truth by its beauty and simplicity.” The study of beauty is called aesthetics. List
some characteristics of things that are beautiful.
• ________________________________________________________________
• ________________________________________________________________
• ________________________________________________________________
• ________________________________________________________________
• ________________________________________________________________
Teaching Science…
60
KD McMahon
Reseda Science Magnet
Name: _______________________
Class: ___________ Date: _______
Order/Chaos
1. Several prompts were shown to you on a PowerPoint presentation. Write about any two of the
prompts. Please identify the prompts you are writing about.
Prompt #1:_______________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
prompt #2: ______________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Teaching Science…
61
2. Give one or more examples of the following:
Order: _______________________________________________________________
Chaos: _______________________________________________________________
3. Consider the illustration showing the balance between
Order and Chaos. Draw how you might shift this
balance in the following cases:
Your
Your
LifeLife
Order
Chaos
The World
4. Do you have the “power” to adjust this balance? Does anything? Explain:
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
Now read the following quotes:
• Homer: “Would that strife would perish from among the gods and men.”
• Heraclitus: “He [Homer] did not see that he was praying for the destruction of the universe, for
if his prayer had been heard, all things would pass away.”
• Vaclav Havel, President of Czech Republic: “Just as the constant increase of entropy is the
basic law of the universe, so it is the basic law of life to be ever more highly structured and to
struggle against entropy.”
• Frederick Nietzsche: “You must have chaos within you to give birth to a dancing star.”
5. Draw how you think each of the above writers, philosophers and politicians would have
viewed the balance between Order/Chaos antinomy.
Your
Homer
Life
Heraclitus
Havel
Nietzsche
6. What relationship do you think may exist between Order/Chaos and…
a. science: ____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
b. art: ________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
Teaching Science…
62
KD McMahon
Reseda Science Magnet
Name: _______________________
Class: ___________ Date: _______
Transcendent/Immanent
1. Several prompts were shown to you on a PowerPoint presentation. Write about any two of the
prompts. Please identify the prompts you are writing about.
Prompt #1:_______________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
prompt #2: ______________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Teaching Science…
63
2. The Russian author, Fyodor Dostoyevski, said, “Man cannot live without kneeling….” What
do you think he meant by this?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3. Transcendence is generally defined as that which is beyond the normal sphere of human
experience. It represents the metaphysical or spiritual realm which exist outside of space and
“normal” time. The Immanent, on the other hand, represents our normal physical experience of
ourselves and world around us. Which statement best represents your belief/attitude regarding
the Transcendent/Immanent:
a. I believe that the Transcendent exists.
b. I believe that only the Immanent exist.
c. I’m not sure.
Comment: ________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4. Have you ever experienced the transcendent in a piece of art or music? If so, how did it make
you feel about (a) the art/music, (b) yourself, and (c) others?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5. Comment regarding the following: “The transcendent is the domain of religion. The
immanent is the domain of science.”
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
6. Read the following quote from Professor of Physics, Chet Raymo: “Even today, in our
technically sophisticated times, a view of the night sky from a dark place – Hyakutake on its
westward arch, Venus among the Pleiades, the Moon rising in eclipse – cannot fail to inspire
dreams of a grandeur and a meaning greater than ourselves.” How do you think Raymo would
respond to question #3?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Teaching Science…
64
KD McMahon
Reseda Science Magnet
Name: _______________________
Class: ___________ Date: _______
Knowable/Mystery
1. Several prompts were shown to you on a PowerPoint presentation. Write about any two of the
prompts. Please identify the prompts you are writing about.
Prompt #1:_______________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
prompt #2: ______________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Teaching Science…
2. Consider the Knowable (K) and Mystery (M) “thermometers” below. Fill in their relative
“temperatures” over time. Predict the “temperature” at 3000AD.
K
M
1000 BC
K
M
1AD
K
M
1000 AD
K
M
2000 AD
K
M
3000 AD
a. What role do you think science has played in how you drew your thermometers?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
b. Whether it is accurate or not Mystery is often considered the domain of religion.
If this is true, what role do you see for religion in the future given your
thermometers?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
3. Francis Bacon, the 16th English statesmen and scientist, said, “Knowledge is power.”
If this is true, than what is Mystery? _________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
5. Given what you have answered here, do you think that the Knowledge/Mystery
antinomy are inevitably in conflict with one another? ___________________________
______________________________________________________________________
65
Teaching Science…
Appendix C
Pre-Post Instructional Survey Analysis
Download Excel Spreadsheet: Pre-Post Instructional Survey
Web link: http://www.kevindmcmahon.com/scienceaesthetics/thesis/thesis%20docs/exceldoc/prepostsurvey.xls
66
Teaching Science…
Appendix D
Antinomy Questionnaire Analysis
Download Excel Spreadsheet: Antinomy Questionnaires
Web Link: http://www.kevindmcmahon.com/scienceaesthetics/thesis/thesis%20docs/exceldoc/antinomies.xls
67
Teaching Science…
Appendix E
Anonymous Free-Response Analysis
Download Excel Spreadsheet: Anonymous Free-Response Survey
Web Link:
http://www.kevindmcmahon.com/scienceaesthetics/thesis/thesis%20docs/exceldoc/anonymoussurvey.xls
Appendix F
68
Teaching Science…
69
Student Interview
Interview
Aesthetics: The Knowable & Mystery of Beauty
[Video excerpt from The Red Violin]
KDM: Who are the main characters?
STUDENT 1: The black guy…
KDM: He’s the appraiser and restorer.
STUDENT 1: The one fixing the guitars
KDM: You mean the violins.
STUDENT 1: Yeah.
KDM: He’s more like an engineer or scientist. Right?
STUDENT 1: Yeah
KDM: Anybody else.
STUDENT 1: The violinist
KDM: Describe the response of each character to the violin?
STUDENT 1: The appraiser was almost brought to tears. The violinists…that one violin he
didn’t really care about. The engineer…he was in awe.
KDM: Who do you think appreciated the violin the most? Why?
STUDENT 1: I’d say the engineer. If I saw the movie may be I’d say the other guy, the
appraiser. The engineer was way more into it.
KDM: What about when the engineer said he wanted to take it apart and the appraiser said, “I
don’t think you get it.” What do you think he meant by that?
STUDENT 1: Oh. Um. The appraiser considers it like a living thing, almost. It’s not just a tool
that you use.
KDM: Given that reflection, do you still stick by your assessment that the engineer appreciated
the violin the most?
Teaching Science…
70
STUDENT 1: No.
KDM: Why.
STUDENT 1: A living thing is more valuable than a machine.
KDM: Why do you think the other characters did not appreciate the violin as much? Why did
the violinist miss it?
STUDENT 1: It was like Harry Potter where the wand chooses the wizard. You have to have a
certain feel. May be the violinist does know it is spectacular.
KDM: But the engineer knew, but you don’t think he appreciated it as much.
STUDENT 1: Not as much.
KDM: What do you think the engineer was lacking that the appraiser had?
STUDENT 1: Children? Not sure what it is.
KDM: That’s interesting. So what do you think the writer/director of this movie is trying to tell
us?
STUDENT 1: Some things that are important to some people are not important to others. They
say one person’s garbage is another person’s treasure. Not to the extent that the violinist thought
it was garbage.
KDM: In this case, this would be an example of beauty being in the eye of the beholder?
STUDENT 1: Yeah
Summary:
Since STUDENT 1 had not seen the movie and was unfamiliar with some of the
emotions expressed in the short video clip I showed her, I believe she relied on prior knowledge
and experience to help her answer the questions. I suspect that she had an initial bias in favor of
the engineer/scientists because he was a familiar type of character and she would expect that I,
her science teacher, would present him in a favorable light. When I reminded her that the
scientist wanted to take the violin apart to study it and the appraiser was appalled by this she
recognized that it was really the appraiser that had appreciated the beauty of the violin. To
explain his appreciation she said that he had seen it as a “living thing” and not just as a “tool”
like the scientist had.
In her thinking STUDENT 1 is, I believe, making a qualitative distinction between the
utility of a tool and the beauty of a living thing. The living thing has taken on the quality of the
Other and as such should be treated differently than just an ordinary object. As an Other is
Teaching Science…
71
should not be subject to experimentation such as described by the engineer who wanted to take it
apart to study it. When asked what the engineer lacked in his perception of the violin, Lauren
had a curious yet insightful response, “Children.” In the video segment, the appraiser had asked
the engineer if he had children, the engineer replied no. He added that he understood what the
appraiser was getting at and that he too would like to have this baby [violin] and to take it apart,
to which the appraiser replied, “I don’t think you get it.” Clearly, the appraiser was making a
comparison between the violin and children. Parents may be custodians of children, but
ultimately they do not possess them. The same is true of beauty. Beauty is in possession of her
self and as such is the Other. I think STUDENT 1 intuited this (perhaps with the aid of some of
our in class instruction) although I doubt if she could have articulated this as I have done here.
STUDENT 1 also demonstrated her use of prior knowledge and experience with her
reference to Harry Potter (the wand choosing the wizard) and the one person’s treasure reference.
This is a subjectivist interpretation of beauty which has become axiomatic in modern aesthetics.
This may be an example of an aesthetical p-prim since this was clearly not the message that the
author/director was trying to convey.