Dr. Towell explains in his Spotlight session that at the heart of scientific discovery is the gathering of evidence from experiments. More importantly it is the ability to repeat those experiments with the same results that helps formulate facts, which in turn allows for future experiments to happen.
What science offers is an objective view of the world, unclouded by emotion or perspective or interpretation. But what happens when scientists dispute the “facts”? Is there room for interpretation, and if so, does that lead us down a slope of “my point of view” versus “your point of view”?
- What is science?
- What does science do?
- What does science not do?
.
http://vimeo.com/71446382
Join the Conversation
If you have a question for this week’s speaker or would like to share a conclusion of your own, please post it as a comment below. We welcome off-campus voices to the public Cornerstone dialogue as long as they are respectful and contribute meaningfully to these curricular discussions. See the ACU Blogs Terms of Use or About Cornerstone for more information.
Spotlight Resources
BIOGRAPHY
Dr. Rusty Towell is a professor and chair of the Engineering and Physics Department. He is an experimental nuclear physicist that collaborates on international research projects at several national labs.
6 responses to “Exploring the Natural Sciences”
Great excerpt! Sagan’s perspective on the relationship between science and spirituality is very interesting, I look forward to this Monday’s Spotlight.
My mom is a high school science teacher, and I think she would love the cartoon you shared with us. Could you tell me where you found it?
Glad you enjoyed Dr. Sutherlin’s cartoon. I think it makes a good point. The cartoon can be found here: http://xkcd.com/242/
Carl Sagan may be an authoritative figure when he talks about the cosmos, but this man has no business talking about how science is somehow contradictory to religion and the philosophy behind it. Sagan writes “Except in pure Mathematics nothing is know for certain (although much is certainly false).” That statement is illogical because the statement itself is a truth claim that cannot be proven by its own premise. Simply put, Sagan cannot prove his statement to be true because he cannot do it mathematically. Secondly, he follows David Hume’s logic on miracles, which basically says miracles can’t happen because they violate the laws of nature. Not only is his argument circular, but he twists what only describes nature into prescribing it. Like Hume, he rules out religion for its superstition and miracles through flawed logic. Finally, his arguments against the religious is ad hominem in nature, which doesn’t prove his case, but merely makes light of the opposer himself. Sagan should have just stuck to the cosmos and left philosophy and reason to real geniuses.
This session really broadened my mind about how science is and changed my perceptions towards science, especially that you have to be willing to allow critics for every finding in order to be able make a good and better product.
I personally agree with Autumn Sutherlin’s statement about religion and science. However, I do not think that they necessarily have to relate to each other but sometimes science can emphasize a point being made by religion. Another thing I’m glad Sutherlin points out is the fact that we do not have it all figured out. Scientists are still studying and trying to discover new things, and also human beings in general do not have everything figured out. People still cannot explain many things: why do bad things happen to good people? Why are innocent children hurt by their own family? Why is there still so much injustice in the world? And the list goes on.