:HIST/HUM/PHYS 361:
Science and Culture
What is this course about anyways?
Einstein: "Education is what remains
after one has forgotten everything he
learned in school."
Thematic divisions



In the first segment we focus on the development / emergence of
science and scientific inquiry into nature as a discipline distinct from
religion, magic and theology.
In the second segment the focus is on the development of physical
models of nature and how instruments [e.g., the telescope] facilitate
the practice of scientific inquiry. In this phase science has little
direct impact on daily life.
In the third segment attention turns to relationship between humans,
science, and the environment. Applied Science (industrialization,
engineering, technology) emerges. Science and technology directly
affect daily life.
In scientific inquiry skepticism and humility are pervasive: ‘reality and clarity
are not possible at the same time’and ‘opposites are complementary’. “the
opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth” Niels Bohr [jn]





That is, one cannot have both clarity and reality at the same time; and
opposites may both be ‘true’.
Nonetheless, in the popular imagination we want to believe that we can
have both clarity and reality. Why?
To have both provides a kind of security? Something humans crave?
That is, cultural expectations / aspirations / hopes often get in the way of
determining reality = Bias.
So too is the determination of ‘reality’ handicapped by incomplete data,
instrument failure, etc.
Questions I [jn]






Both science and religion deal with ‘nature’. What is the difference?
How does culture affect / encourage / discourage scientific
discovery?
How does scientific discovery / knowledge affect culture? How are
these connected? and what are the limitations to this kind of
feedback?
Do humans use science to justify political, social, cultural policies?
How does society cope with scientific ideas that appear to be
counter-intuitive? Or are at odds with cultural values?
Is there a difference between science and technology? And should
society promote one over the other?
Questions II [gb and gb]

Why should society support science?
 What is the economic price of knowledge acquisition?
Esp. when there is no immediate commercial value? If
the price is perceived to be “too high” when compared
with other social / cultural needs, what then?
 How does science // engineering affect cultural change?
Can that change be measured and explained?
 What is the “Truth” and who is its “gatekeeper”?
 What happens when scientific “Truth” [and/or scientific
consensus about what is true] is unacceptable to the
masses?
Questions III [jn]







What is the connection between Science and Religion? What do they
have in common?
Is science a system of belief?
Is religion a science?
Consider these words: "Science without religion is lame. Religion
without science is blind.”
What does it mean when we claim to find order in nature? Does
order suggest an “Orderer”?
Is nature really ordered or are we forcing it to appear that way so
that we can explain it ? If there is no “order” can there be any
science?
Are humans part of nature? Or different in some fundamental way
different from other species?
Sub Texts [gb]
Issues that will permeate the course…
Cooperation versus Competition as the
means to achieve the ‘more perfect’ and / or
ideal state/government
Why do we so easily treat nature as a
consumable? Nature would seem to have
no spiritual value but is just a machine.
Are humans really separate and distinct
from nature?
More Sub Texts [jn&gb]

Why do we require certainty in order to make decisions?
 Can we trust our senses? How can we ‘be sure’?
 How do reason and experience interact? Is rationalism
superior to empiricism? Or the latter superior to the
former?
 Has anything really changed for 10,000 years in terms of
human behavior and human/institutional structures?
 Has science ever impacted the way in which society
functions?
 What does it mean to be ‘enlightened’?
On the role of science in the world order
Many religions claim to have a redeemer who
can lead the chosen and enlightened people to a
better world.
 Some believe that “Science” can play this role,
namely that those “enlightened” by science can
lead us to a better world. What do you think?

Max Planck
“We have no right to assume that
any physical laws exist, or if they
have existed up to now, that they
will continue to exist in a similar
manner in the future.”
Whatever can he mean? And what
are the implications?