Physics faith integration introductory topics

These topics are used during the three semester introductory physics sequence as Azusa Pacific University. They are brief introductions to our four faith integration themes. These topics are briefly discussed in each class period, then students post in online threaded discussions. Their participation in the threaded discussions is graded.

This instructor guide contains the topics and comments in bullet points. The bullet points are ideas about the topics that should be raised in the discussion or items to look out for during the discussion. As much as possible, it is best to let students try to come up with the ideas, but in many topics, they will need the instructor to summarize and add aspects on the topic that they didnt discuss.

The order of topics is intentional, but they may be arranged to suit the needs of a course. Single semester courses may take a selection of topics from all 4 themes.

Characteristics of scientists (Physics for Science & Engineering I)

1. Name at least one personality trait or habit that good scientists have. Explain why that trait is important to scientific work.

There are many answers to this question. The students will likely come up with a good list. Traits that may be included are honesty, curiosity, integrity, determination, passion, organization, humility, confidence, intelligence, observant, collaboration, communication, persistence, etc.

For each trait that they identify, ask them to briefly describe why it is useful.

Tell the students that this question is a preview, as many of the rest of the topics in the course will look in more detail at the traits that they thought of.

2. Of the personality traits and habits of good scientists that the class identified in the last topic, which are also good traits or habits for Christians to have? Why do you think it is that many of the traits of good scientists and good Christians are similar?

The students likely wont remember the topics that they discussed in #1, but they can brainstorm again easily.

Example: Both Christians and scientists should be honest. Obviously, honesty is important for Christians because lying is sinful. Honesty is important for Christians because in order to draw accurate conclusions, it is necessary that their data be reliable.

The students will quickly come to the conclusion that the traits that are good for Christians and scientists are approximately identical.

After taking a few examples, ask the last part of the question. Emphasize the common humanity of Christians and scientists and that both Christianity and science are seeking for forms of truth, so that the traits are similar.

3. During freshman orientation, you likely took the Strengths Quest test to identify some of your particular strengths. For example, my top 5 strengths are Strategic, Learner, Input, Intellection, and Responsibility. Please share a few of your strengths. Which of your strengths are useful for scientific work?

The Strengths Quest survey is taken by all APU students. If your institution doesnt use something like this, you can give a sample list of strengths and have the students self-identify.

Adapt the example strengths to match your own.

Emphasize that all strengths are useful, including more traditional academic strengths and people-oriented strengths like empathy, restorativeness, etc.

4. What are some of the things that you value most (faith, family, friends, creativity, humor, career, etc.)? Why do you value them?

Whatever they come up with on this is good. The purpose of this topic is to show your personal interest in them.

As you see opportunity, you might comment on how their values can be supported by science.

5. We have agreed that one has to be highly motivated in order to be successful as a scientist. Brainstorm what things might motivate people to study science. In other words, what do people hope to gain by studying science?

Money

Prestige

Control

Help people

Gain knowledge

Personal interest

6. "My scientific interests are driven in some sense by what one would call the public good. The issue to me is, does the science have some useful return on the time horizon of maybe 10 or 20 years. If it is esoteric and the question doesn't have a useful impact on the time horizon on this order, I don't find it interesting.

-Ashok Gadgil

Environmental Technologies Division

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Do you agree with this statement? Is science useful or worthwhile if it does not have any foreseeable technological application?

Some may agree on the basis that science should produce some benefit.

Other may disagree on the basis that knowledge is intrinsically valuable.

Ask about the time scale. Most will agree that 10-20 years is too short.

Applications may not be foreseeable. Bring up examples like quantum mechanics.

7. The first president of the American Physical Society, in his inaugural address cast his vision of physics as pure science, as opposed to applied science. He advocated for science as a pursuit of pure knowledge, not motivated by technological possibilities, as a noble contribution to humankind. In what way does pure knowledge benefit humankind?

Curiosity seems to be a fundamental human trait that science fulfills.

Applications may not be foreseeable.

Findings may be intrinsically beautiful regardless of application.

Science can be a form of worship by studying Gods creation.

8. Define what it means to be a scientist. What is the difference, if any, between a scientist, a mathematician, and an engineer?

Scientist somebody use attempts to learn how the universe works by means of direct observation and experimentation

Mathematician somebody who uses logic and patterns to study how numbers, equations, etc. behave

Engineer somebody who attempts to create objects and technologies for specific human uses

This topic includes mathematicians and engineers because those populations take APUs intro physics course. If other populations are in your course, you can include them instead.

9. Does the definition of a scientist that we came up with place any limitations on who can be a scientist? Must a scientist be affluent? Extraordinarily gifted? A certain age? Living under any particular circumstances?

Scientists do not have to be affluent, though money does help. In modern society, much funding for scientific education and scientific research is available from the government.

Most people have sufficient intelligence to be a scientist with hard enough work and practice. Emphasize a growth mindset, i.e. that thinking abilities can be improved through practice.

Since science is learning about the natural world, even infants are in a sense scientists. Everybody can keep learning.

10. A few years ago, a sociology research group wanted to study how childrens perceptions of professionals in various fields affect their future career choices. They asked elementary school children to draw pictures of scientists. The majority of the children drew middle-aged white males wearing a white lab coat and glasses. In fact, the childrens perception is somewhat accurate; women and racial or cultural minorities have historically been underrepresented among science professionals. Why might women and minorities be less likely to have careers in science?

Preface this topic with a reminder that it may be sensitive and that all students should be respectful of each other.

Take as much time as needed for this topic. Some classes may want to spend a significant amount of time.

Showing statistics might help.

Be careful not to call on anybody to be a token representative of any group.

Cultural expectations have a big effect on the goals of students. Since culture doesnt expect women and minorities to be scientists, they are often not encouraged or are explicitly discouraged.

Example: Some studies have shown that girls perform better in math and science than boys until junior high, then their performance decreases when they become aware of bias.

Example: Stereotype threat performance suffers when the student is aware of a negative stereotype about a group that they identify with. This effect can be avoided if students are aware of it.

There are also systematic barriers. Teachers may pay less attention to females/minorities. Quality of schools may be less in poor areas where minorities are more likely to live. Females/minorities are less likely to be accepted into grad school or hired. Job structures may not allow for child rearing. Communities are often biased against women/minorities in subtle or overt ways.

Role models help. Showing statistics that the representation is becoming more equitable is good.

Emphasize that intelligence is not a barrier to females/minorities.

Clearly state your belief in the ability of all students.

11. The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of true art and true science. Whoever does not know it can no longer wonder, no longer marvel, is as good as dead, and his eyes are dimmed.

-Albert Einstein

Do you agree with Einstein? Is marvelling related to any of the traits of good scientists that we have been discussing? Why is it important for us to marvel?

Most students will agree.

Marvelling is useful because it increases motivation.

Marvelling is useful for appreciating beauty.

One who marvels is likely to be more curious and more observant.

12. A natural consequence of marveling is a sense of amazement. In my opinion, there are at least two distinct kinds of amazement. I define them as follows:

Bewildered amazement-amazement due to an unexpected or ununderstood event

Eureka amazement-amazement due to a clarity of understanding

Which of these types of amazement is good in the sciences? In religious experience? Can you think of examples of these two types of amazement from the Bible or science history?

Bewildered amazement is useful in science because it points out what we dont know and leads to marveling.

Eureka amazement is often the goal of science. We want our understanding to be coherent. It is satisfying when it all clicks.

Bewildered amazement is useful in religious experience because God uses bewilderment to get our attention. Example: burning bush.

Eureka amazement is useful in religious experience because God reveals himself to us. Example: Peters confession.

13. Some people think of science as a joyless calculated process, but in fact it is common for professional scientists, mathematicians, or engineers to describe a discovery as beautiful or elegant. What does it mean for something to be beautiful or elegant in math, engineering, or science?

Some students may bring up that beauty depends on personal taste. Scientific ideas might be considered beautiful to somebody who is interested in them.

Beautiful might mean an idea is pleasing by being coherent, predictable, or functional. Science and engineering also contain things that are aesthetically beautiful, e.g. by symmetry.

Elegant may mean that something is functional, e.g. a simple solution to a complicated problem.

14. A recent article described why Aaron Rodgers, quarterback for the Green Bay Packers, is successful.

He seems to be someone who simply cannot imagine staying the same, simply cannot imagine that hes already good enoughthe most successful quarterbacks, bar none, are the ones who deal with those distractions and never believe the hype and continue to hunger for even the slightest improvement.

Is taking initiative to improve their skills or knowledge important for scientists? For Christians? What steps can a scientist take to continue to improve themselves?

Initiative is extremely important. Scientists are supposed to discover new knowledge, so they must be driven.

Science students also need to take initiative to learn. Learning doesnt happen passively. In order to learn effectively, you must actively integrate what you know into your knowledge system by paraphrasing, sense making, relating to experience, checking against intuition, seeking out things you dont understand, etc.

Initiative is also important for Christians. We are to be constantly seeking God. Spiritual discipline requires active growth. Sanctification takes a lifetime.

15. Something to remember about mathematics is the importance of failure. If most of your attempts are successful, then youre not attempting anything really interesting. On the other hand, if 90% of your attempts are failing, then you are probably doing some interesting mathematics. So please remember, experiment, have fun, and dont worry about failing. Failing will only teach you more math.

-Paul ZeitzUniversity of San Francisco

Do you agree or disagree with this quote? Why is it important that a scientist or mathematician be willing to risk trying something that they arent sure will work? What role does trying something that ultimately doesnt work play in learning?

Some students may disagree because too much failure might lead to discouragement.

Willingness to take risks is extremely important. If you dont test an idea, you will never know if it is true.

Learning environments that discourage risk stifle creativity. Scientists need to be creative.

Learning occurs at the edge of your ability. If you only do comfortable exercises, there is nothing to learn. Trying new things allows you to grow.

16. Professional scientists are regularly subjected to advice and constructive criticism. Advice and criticism may come from professors (while in college), research advisors (while in grad school), journal referees, research collaborators, or competitors. How a scientist responds to advice or criticism can affect their reputation and the quality of their work. When you receive advice or criticism, how do you deal with it? What does the Bible have to say about giving or receiving advice or criticism?

Most people react to criticism with defensiveness.

It is healthy to take criticism by considering and applying it.

In an educational setting, a professional is giving suggestions for growth, so it is a good idea to implement the suggestions. Analogy: coach gives suggestions and exercises to improve form of an athlete.

When giving criticism, it should be done with the best interests of the person in mind. Criticism should be delivered gently.

Proverbs 12:1 is a good example.

17. The following are my definitions of a few terms.

Doubt Being unsure of the truth of a statement

Skepticism Withholding judgment on a question until evidence is gathered

Disbelief Continuing in a state of doubt, possibly in spite of evidence

Are any of these three traits characteristic of scientists? Are these traits good or bad?

Doubt is inevitable and neutral.

Skepticism is an essential trait of a scientist. We should be willing to consider any idea fairly, weighing evidence before we determine whether to accept it.

Disbelief is usually bad. We want to eventually come to a conclusion on an idea.

18. The following are my definitions of a few terms.

Doubt Being unsure of the truth of a statement

Skepticism Withholding judgment on a question until evidence is gathered

Disbelief Continuing in a state of doubt, possibly in spite of evidence

What is the attitude of the Church towards these characteristics? Are doubt and/or skepticism encouraged in the Christian community? Are doubt and/or skepticism good or bad traits for believers to have?

Some Christian communities have a dysfunctional relationship with doubt and skepticism. Our goal should be to discover truth. Open-mindedness to new ideas is an essential part of this.

The reason some Christian communities discourage open questioning is fear that findings might contradict their beliefs. However, if our beliefs are true, they will be able to withstand scrutiny. God doesnt need us to defend him.

Skepticism is also good for Christians. We should actively seek evidence for our beliefs.

Denying doubt can be harmful to the Church by encouraging dishonesty and setting up a false dichotomy between intellectual pursuits and faith.

19. Disbelief as I defined it is an antonym of confidence, which was one of the traits that we identified as being characteristic of good scientists. Why is confidence important? How do scientists become confident? How is it possible to be a skeptic and also be confident?

Scientists need to be confident that they can figure things out. Without confidence they would lose motivation.

Scientists become confident by testing their ideas. As they have more evidence supporting their ideas, they become more confident in the ideas. Skepticism leads to confidence.

20. I like to be right, but to go into this field, into science, you have got to be prepared to be proven to be wrong. And indeed it is a virtue to come out with theories that can be shown to be right or wrong.

-Steven Pinkner

Professor of Cognitive Psychology, Harvard University

Is there any value to openly admitting that you dont know everything? Does science teach humility?

Humility is essential to science. If we already knew everything, there would be no need for further research.

Research is a sort of cosmic dare. We subject our ideas to testing. Falsifying incorrect ideas is how science progresses.

Science can lead to humility because scientists often fail or are proved wrong.

21. Often when scientists are portrayed in movies or other forms of popular culture, they are characterized as arrogant. Why might scientists appear this way to the general public? Is arrogance in fact a common trait of scientists? If so, what makes scientists prone to this bad trait and what steps can we take to avoid arrogance?

Though some scientists are arrogant, it is not a universal or common trait.

Scientists are often humble because they are used to being proven wrong and admitting limitations of their knowledge.

However, scientists may be tempted to arrogance because they know more than more people.

Pride, which leads to arrogance, is part of sinful human nature.

22. A common stereotype of scientists is the mad scientist whose entire life revolves around his research. Often stereotypes arise out of generalities about their subjects as a group. Do you think this part of the mad scientist stereotype is accurate, i.e. do scientists really work harder or more single-mindedly than most people?

Yes, scientists do need to work hard in order to succeed.

Some students may point out that other fields also work hard.

Scientists may be more devoted to their work because they have a passion for it.

23. Societies with a Christian, especially Protestant, basis also are sometimes stereotyped as placing a strong emphasis on work. This is sometimes referred to as a Christian work ethic. What does it mean to have a Christian work ethic?

Example: Colossians 3:23

Example: Matthew 24:15-30 (parable of the talents)

Christians should view their work as a way to glorify God.

Christians should conduct their work with integrity.

Christians may choose vocations that align with their values.

24. Another aspect of the mad scientist stereotype, perhaps resulting from overwork, is extreme isolation. This isolation may be either a withdrawal from most of society or lack of contact with individuals. Do you think this stereotype about scientists has any accuracy? Why might scientists tend to become isolated? How might we ensure that we dont become isolated?

This stereotype is demonstrably false. Scientists almost always collaborate in groups.

In experimental science, working alone could be a safety issue.

Working in groups is typically more productive because ideas can be shared.

Scientists work in groups in order to train the next generation.

Social isolation is a danger to scientists. Most people dont understand what scientists do, so it is sometimes difficult for scientists to connect. It is important to have interests other than science.

25. Several associations, such as the American Physical Society, have issued statements indicating that distrust of scientists by the general public is a major societal problem. For example, when the tsunami in Japan in 2011 damaged a nuclear power plant, many Americans feared that dangerous fallout would be blown across the Pacific Ocean by winds, even though several scientists publicly stated that there was no danger. Why might the public tend to distrust scientists? What steps can we take to help establish the reliability of the scientific community?

The public might distrust scientists because they dont understand how scientific results become accepted. This can be helped by better education to scientific literacy.

The public is aware of many instances in which scientists have been wrong. Being wrong is part of the process, but the public doesnt understand this.

The media contributes to the publics distrust of scientists by sensationalizing results. It would be better if more scientists directly engaged with the public.

Results should be presented to the public with their supporting evidence when possible.

26. Part of the reason the public doesnt trust scientists is because they dont understand how results become accepted in science. In modern science, research findings are submitted as journal articles. Each article must be approved in review by independent experts before it is published. The result is accepted because of an extended network of trust in the reviewers and other members of the scientific community. If scientific journals did not use peer review, would scientific results still be trustworthy? Why is it important to the peer review process that all members of the scientific community have integrity and honesty?

Start this topic with a brief overview of the peer review process.

Peer review helps results be reliable because they are checked thoroughly.

With peer review, the trust doesnt have to be in an individual scientist, but in the scientific community at large.

Integrity is essential to the peer review process.

Since scientists are seeking truth, they must be honest or they will mislead themselves.

27. Though the vast majority of scientists conduct their work with integrity, instances of dishonesty do occur. What sorts of activities could scientists do in their work that would be dishonest? Thinking about your experiments and reports in lab might help you find examples.

Falsifying data

Fabricating data

Ignoring data that disagrees with predictions

Plagiarism

Conducting unethical research

Suppressing undesirable results

Publishing with credit inaccurately withheld or given

28. A recent study by a team of sociologists surveyed scientists to determine their views about the interactions between science and religion. They used the scientists responses to classify their views into 5 categories:

Conflict: Science over Theology-theology and science fundamentally conflict in describing reality and science naturally should be accepted as correct

Compartmentalism-theology and science describe completely separate realities, so there can be no conflict or agreement

Concordism-theology and science describe the same aspects of reality, so accurate scientific and theological descriptions should be completely consistent

Complementarism-theology and science describe different aspects or reality, so that when taken together they should form a more complete understanding

Conflict: Theology over Science-theology and science fundamentally conflict in describing reality and theology should be trusted more than science

Which of these paradigms do you think is most common among scientists? Among non-scientist Christians? Which paradigm do you identify with?

Have students make their predictions about scientists first. They are likely to predict conflict or compartmentalism. As a few students for the reason for their prediction.

Show data: From Bundrick (2012)

Among a sample of 133 scientists whose survey answers clearly identified them as agreeing with one of the paradigms, the results were:

69.9% Complementarism

14.3% Conflict: Science over theology

8.3% Concordism

5.3% Compartmentalism

2.2% Conflict: Theology over science

The study authors concluded that The most frequently employed integrative paradism is complementarism. This counters popular thinking promoted by media. And also Generally, scientists do not compartmentalize.

Non-scientist Christians have views approximately evenly distributed across the spectrum.

29. You know how strongly I believe that we dont do science for ourselves, that we do it so we can explain to others

Why is communication important in science? Should we always be able to explain science to laymen with no science background?

Communicating results to other scientists is vital so that ideas can be checked, reproduced, challenged, and spread.

Science is a public trust, so we should be able to explain it to others.

Some students might object that not all scientific results need to be shared with laymen.

30. Richard Feynman, a Nobel Prize winning physicist, once said A good scientist must write like a journalist, think like a poet, and work like a clerk.

The last part requires thinking in an organized and thorough manner. In essence, mental discipline is necessary to reliably deal with details without losing sight of the big picture. (This is why small details like arithmetic and units matter so much in physics.) Is it possible to use mental discipline to help develop spiritual discipline?

Mental discipline is essential to spiritual discipline. Spiritual growth will be stunted without reading the Bible, prayer, and teaching in a Christian community.

Example: Prayer requires concentration.

31. Many people chose a subject for their PhD and then continue the same subject until they retire. I despise this approach. I have changed my subject five times before I got my first tenured position and that helped me to learn different subjects.

-Andre Geim

Physics Nobel Prize winner 2010

How does it help a scientist to have a versatile set of skills? Is it important for a scientist to have a broad base of knowledge about different scientific subjects? About non-scientific subjects?

A wide variety of skills helps scientists by having a broader set of tools available to approach problems.

Knowledge from different scientific subjects is useful because solutions or ideas from one area can be transported to a new area.

Knowledge of non-scientific subjects is also useful. For example, knowing about history can help scientists communicate with non-scientists.

Scientists need to be adaptable because they are trying to solve new problems.

32. The variety of environments in which scientists work is quite broad. Many scientists travel in order to obtain their data to places such as mountains (geologists), conferences (mathematicians and others), building sites (engineers), particle accelerators (particle physicists), computer clusters (theorists), or even Antarctica (climatologists). Most science gets done in whatever location has the necessary conditions or necessary equipment. What sorts of lifestyle sacrifices do you think might be necessary for a scientist to go where they must to get their work done?

Scientists might sacrifice comfort, for example if they have to work in the field.

Scientists might sacrifice lifestyle, for example if they need to life in a foreign country.

Scientists might sacrifice relationships, for example if they need to be away from home for their experiment.

Scientists might sacrifice their schedule, for example if their experiment needs to be performed at night.

Scientists may choose to make these sacrifices because of their passion for their work.

33. Historically, modern science has developed in societies built on Christian principles. In fact, the majority of the founding fathers of modern science were Christians. Is there something about a Christian society that encourages the development of science, or is this just a coincidence?

Science developed in the Middle Ages in universities in western Europe. These universities were founded as seminaries.

Many early scientists considered their studies an expression of worship of the creator.

Example: The Church (and also Muslims) promoted study of astronomy in order to have accurate calendars for the scheduling of their holy days.

34. In his book The Savior of Science, Stanley Jaki describes how the development of modern science has proceeded in the context of cultures with different dominant religions. One difference between Christianity and other religions pointed out by Jaki in The Savior of Science is that many other religions deify natural things while our God is entirely supernatural. For example, the Egyptians personified the sun as the god Aten. How might deifying aspects of nature suppress the development of science?

Deifying a phenomenon causes it to be considered supernatural and therefore not subject to scientific study.

Supernatural explanations might decrease the desire to search for natural explanations.

Scientific scrutiny of a deity might be discouraged by religious institutions or considered disrespectful to the god.

35. In his book The Savior of Science, philosopher Stanley Jaki argues that potential scientific revolutions in non-Christian cultures have been stunted by a lack of belief in progress. For example, Hinduism teaches that the history of the universe is cyclic. If history will eventually repeat, it stands to reason that no real progress can be made. In contrast, the biblical account of the history of the universe begins with creation and progresses steadily through stages of redemption, ultimately ending in a new heaven and new Earth. This narrative of redemptive history can be seen as a type of progress. How might belief in the possibility of progress encourage development of science?

Science assumes progress in the form of getting progressively better models to describe nature.

Without the possibility of progress, scientific study would be discouraging.

One important motivation for science is technological progress.

Scientific worldview (Physics for Science & Engineering II)

1. The universe is so simple, and it didnt have to be that way. The universe could have been totally chaotic. It could have been messy, ugly. It didnt have to be that simple, but it is. And thats why I believe in this cosmic order. Its just too gorgeous to have been a fluke.

-Michio Kaku

Theoretical physicist, City College of New York

I think nature in itself is so amazing, and so complex. Its too amazing and too complex to think of it as just a random event.

-Maja Matari

Professor of Computer Science and Neuroscience, USC

Do you agree with either of these statements? Is it possible for the universe to be both simple and complex?

Nature is simple in the sense that there are a small number of fundamental laws of physics.

Nature is complex in the extraordinary variety that exists.

During creation in Genesis 1, God ordered the universe, then commended his created beings to multiply.

2. In the last topic, part of what Kaku meant by describing the universe as simple is that the universe appears to follow orderly physical laws. In fact, the orderliness of nature is one of the basic assumptions of science. Is this assumption justified, i.e. do we have good reason to believe that nature is in fact orderly? Could you conceive of a universe that did not follow orderly laws? If we also assume that nature was created, what might natures orderliness indicate about the God who created it?

We do have good reason to believe that nature is orderly. The laws of physics have been reliable across all of our experience.

I can imagine a universe that doesnt have orderly laws, but it would be extremely inhospitable.

If creation is orderly, it stands to reason that the God who created it values order.

3. In science, we assume that nature is comprehensible. Is this assumption necessary? In other words, would science still work if we did not assume or expect that nature is comprehensible?

It would be possible for nature to be orderly, and yet so complicated that human minds couldnt understand it.

Without having a chance ot comprehending nature, there would be little motivation for studying science because the effort would be doomed to failure.

4. In a 1960 journal article, the physicist Eugene Wigner said,

The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve.

And furthermore,

The enormous usefulness of mathematics in the natural sciences is something bordering on the mysterious and that there is no rational explanation for it.

It is indeed stunning that most physical laws can be written as fairly simple mathematical equations. Is there any fundamental reason why laws should be expressible using math? Does the simplicity of physics equations tell us anything about the nature of God?

Point out a few examples of simple physics laws.

Math is particularly good at expressing ideas that are simple and precise. Since the laws of physics are mathematizable, they must be simple and precise.

Most of the laws of physics are based on some simple underlying symmetry. For example, there are only a small number of subatomic particles that make up all atoms. The reducibility of nature of particles makes the laws simple.

Devils advocate argument; The laws that we have discovered may have been discovered only because they were the ones that were simple enough for our human minds to comprehend. Or perhaps we are looking for structure. Still, the laws that we have discovered work astonishingly well.

If God wishes for humans to have a relationship with him, it makes sense that He would create laws that we can comprehend.

5. Another basic assumption of science is that nature is real; the outside world actually exists, as opposed to being just some perception inside our minds. Would science still be possible and/or useful if there wasnt a real outside world?

Point out that this is an assumption of science. Being aware of our assumptions is a critical thinking skill.

We certainly perceive the world to be real. It either is real or a figment of our imagination.

If nature wasnt real, we would still be able to make observations based on our imagination of it. However, these imaginary observations wouldnt have any meaning.

Human minds dont operate in an orderly enough way to expect physical laws to be reliable if it was all imaginary.

6. Since the world is real, we are able to observe it. Scientists assume that our senses can give us reliable information about the world. Is this assumption justified? Why is this assumption important to science?

Our senses are reliable enough to keep us alive. At the very least, we dont have anything else to go on.

However, our senses are certainly not infallible. There are things that we cant sense and instances when our senses are inaccurate.

One reason we make quantitative measurements with apparatus is to mitigate the unreliability of our senses.

Assuming our senses are reliable is important because it gives us a standard of evidence. Science is restricted to using things that we can directly observe with our senses are our evidence.

7. In science, we always make measurements (or observations) in order to build or verify theories. We assume that two experimenters who perform the same experiment will find that their measurements agree. We might say that the objects of study must be publicly observable and repeatable.

Is it true that two experimenters measurements will agree? What types of objects are publicly observable? Does anything exist that is not publicly observable? Why is it important that experiments be repeatable?

Review the assumptions of reality of nature and reliability of our senses.

Since we assume that nature is real, i.e. external to us, all real physical objects are publicly observable.

Things that exist that are not publicly observable include ideas, opinions, minds, souls, and God.

Repeatability is important because it allows us to check each others work .Scientists make mistakes, so it is valuable for others to be able to correct them.

8. In textbook presentations of the scientific method (which are usually grossly oversimplified), it is usually stated that experiments must be repeated before their results are accepted. Why is repeatability important for science? Is repeating of experiments required in all cases, or are some results valid if they are not repeated?

Repeating results is built into science. Repeating make us more confident in our results.

An individual may be convinced by their own experiment. However, other scientists may not be convinced without repeating the experiment for themselves. Repeatibility allows consensus.

Any important result should be repeated.

9. Over the years, scientists have developed several different general principles to explain phenomena. Some of these principles are easily applied in some situations, but not readily useful in other situations. For example, Newtons laws describe the motions of objects moving relatively slowly, but fast objects are better treated using special relativity. One assumption of science, sometimes called the correspondence principle, is that principles in one realm should not contradict principles in another realm. In other words, the entire set of physical laws should be internally consistent. Is this assumption justified? Are there any philosophical or theological implications of the consistency of physical laws?

If two ideas contradict each other, it is not logically possible for them both to be true.

Some of the laws (e.g. Newtons 2nd law) that the students have learned in their intro courses have actually not been fundamental, but just special cases. We dont really know the full laws of physics, but we assume that they exist.

Suppose that two special cases contradicted. This would imply that at least one of them is wrong.

God tells us that he is unchanging. Consistence is to be expected of such as Creator.

10. Another basic assumption of science is that physics is controlled by a fairly small number of general principles. We use scientific methods to determine what the general principles are and then we use the general principles to try to explain everything. For a principle to be considered general, i.e. a law, what properties does it need to have? Why do general principles have those properties?

Physical laws should apply to all objects. (This was not assumed before the Newtonian synthesis.)

Physical laws should be the same for all locations. This is an assumption that may not be accurate.

Physical laws should be the same at all times.

11. Physics looks for general principles for how nature works, such as Newtons laws of force, conservation of energy, and conservation of momentum. There arent very many general principles in physics; Id say less than 10 principles to summarize all of nature. All of science then is an exercise in applying these general principles to a wide variety of phenomena.

What are the general principles of the Christian faith? To be general, they should be fairly simple and always true. There also should not be very many general principles.

The students will brainstorm a wide variety on this.

Principle of love: we are to love God and other people

Grace: Gods love and salvation are unearned

Sin: All humans sin

Mercy: God has taken the punishment for sinners

Revelation: God reveals himself to us through the Bible and the Holy Spirit

Obedience: The task of Christians is to obey God

12. Truth being uniform, and always the same, it is admirable to observe how easily we are enabled to make out very abstruse and difficult matters, when once true and genuine Principles are obtained.

-Edmond Halley

One important property of general principles or physical laws is that they should be uniformly true. We assume that laws are the same for all physical objects, at all locations in the universe, at all times. Is this assumption justified? Can you imagine a universe in which the laws varied at different times or places? Why is this assumption important to science?

A universe with laws that were not uniform in space and time is imaginable, but it would be very different than our experience.

We assume that the laws havent changed over time, but dont have good evidence for this since science has only been going on for a short period of time.

We assume that the laws are the same at all places, but we dont have good evidence for this since we cant make measurements at all locations.

13. Many prominent writers on the philosophy of science argue that logic, i.e. following a formal set of logical rules of reasoning, is an essential feature of science. For example, given the statement animals without wings cant fly and the observation pigs do not have wings, the rules of logic dictate that pigs cant fly is a true statement. Why is logic important in science? If something is logical, does that mean it is simple, obvious, or intuitive? How can some counterintuitive results of science also be logical?

Logic is important because we use logic to interpret our observations and to make predictions from theories.

Logical ideas do not have to be simple or intuitive.

Events happen in science that are counterintuitive. This happens because our experiences are incomplete, and new events might happen in situations that are significantly different from our experiences. Or we may have drawn incorrect conclusions from our previous experiences.

14. Mathematics is another field of study that depends on logical thought. Conclusions (theorems) in math are then true if the beginning assumptions are true. On the other hand, in science conclusions (theoretical explanations of phenomena) are determined to be true if they match experimental observations. Would science be possible without experimental observations? What are the advantages of using observations of the natural world? What are the limitations?

Observations are vital in science because they are the only accepted form of evidence. (Though other forms of evidence are valid in other fields.)

The main advantage of using observations is that it gives us a reliable standard. Others can check out results. We can establish as fact what we have observed.

One limitations is that our observations may be unreliable or incomplete.

Another limitation is that not all questions can be answered by direct observation. Limiting ourselves to observations constraints the type of questions that science can answer.

15. One major purpose of science is to attempt to explain how things happen. Scientists assume that nature operates on a principle of causality, i.e. that every event involving physical objects is caused by some other event. In order to be a valid scientific explanation, the cause that is identified must be another natural event. Give an example of an event and the natural cause for that event. Supernatural causes are explicitly ruled out in scientific explanations. Give an example of event to which someone might attribute a supernatural cause.

Example: A plant grows because it absorbs sunlight and carbon dioxide from the air and a chemical reaction occurs to convert them into the chemicals that make up the plant cells.

Example: A thunderstorm happens so we conclude that the storm god Thor must be angry.

Example; A universe exists so we conclude that God created it.

16. Some people go to great lengths to explain biblical miracles in natural terms. For example, when the Israelites crossed the Jordan River to enter Canaan in Joshua 3, the drying of the Jordan could potentially be explained if an earthquake caused a landslide that temporarily dammed the river.

What is a miracle? If an event could plausibly happen in a manner consistent with the laws of physics, even if it is very unlikely, does that mean it is not a miracle?

Proposed definitions of miracle: anything that violates the laws of physics, an event that is improbable, an improbable event that occurs at an opportune time, an event that occurs within the will and power of God

Most students will find the first proposed definition distasteful. Objections include that it doesnt not account for diversity of circumstances and that it does not account for personal circumstances.

The main objection to the first proposed definition is that God is sovereign over nature, so he can work with circumstances that are physically plausible.

Ask the students for examples.

The last proposed definition can be expanded to imply that the whole universe is a miracle.

17. While constructing explanations, scientists intentionally prohibit themselves from resorting to supernatural causes. This limits the sorts of questions that can be addressed scientifically. What sorts of questions are scientific? What sorts of questions are not scientific?

Is a daisy prettier than a tulip?

Which is more valuable, a pound of gold or a pound of lead?

Is it wrong to euthanize terminally ill patients?

What is the purpose of the filament in a light bulb?

What should society do to fix global climate change?

Are the above questions scientific questions? Why or why not?

None of these are scientific. Science cant answer questions of subjective experience, value, purpose, ethics, etc.

The light bulb question is interesting because science can address the mechanism, but not the goal.

18. Scientific materialism-philosophy holding that anything that is not physical, measurable, or accessible to scientific questions is unreal

People who hold the philosophy of scientific materialism often argue that science is the only way to establish truth. Nonscientific questions are of no interest to them. In light of what we have discussed about the limitations of science, do you think scientific materialism is a wise philosophy?

This question is subjective and open to various opinions. Start with a reminder to respect others views.

Questions of beauty, value, ethics, etc. are highly important to humans, but they are not scientifically accessible. Therefore, we would limit humanity if we didnt acknowledge non-scientific questions.

Materialism is of great value in science because it establishes clear ground rules for scientific study. However, science has not as yet produced any satisfactory purely materialism accounting for important human features such as consciousness, values, spirituality, etc.

19. A prediction states what we expect to happen in a particular situation. Why is it important to make predictions in science? Should a prediction always be made before an experiment, or is it okay to come up with a prediction after experimenting or to experiment without having a hypothesis?

Predictions are valuable because they allow us to test out understanding. We use our prior reasoning to come up with a concrete prediction that can be tested.

Not all experiments have to have predictions, but it is good to be in the habit of making predictions whenever appropriate.

Making a prediction after doing an experiment doesnt have much value, since you already know the outcome. However, reflecting on why or why not a prediction was upheld in the experiment is highly valuable analysis.

20. In lab, you have learned that one characteristic of a good hypothesis is falsifiability. Experimentalists spend a great deal of effort attempting to falsify hypotheses. Why is it considered progress if a hypothesis is falsified by experiment?

Scientists dont know everything. In almost all cases, we have competing hypotheses when we do an experiment.

When a hypothesis is falsified, it narrows down the set of possible hypotheses.

When a hypothesis is falsified, it corrects our ideas.

21. Experiments are often designed to attempt to falsify hypotheses, even if the hypotheses are well-established. When a hypothesis is then not falsified, some might consider it a failure of the experiment. Why do scientists consider it progress when an experiment fails to falsify a hypothesis? When a hypothesis is tested and not falsified, is that equivalent to proving the hypothesis?

When a hypothesis is repeatedly tested but not falsified, our confidence in the hypothesis increases.

Nothing is ever really proven in science. There is always some doubt because our data is always incomplete. Through testing, we can get very confident but never to 100% certainty.

22. You often hear people claim that they have scientific proof for something. Presumably, they mean they have measured evidence to support their point. How many observations does it take to prove something in science? How many contradictory observations does it take to disprove something in science?

An infinite number of observations would be necessary to prove something. In order to be 100% sure of the results, a hypothesis would need to have been tested in every possible situation at all times. This is not possible.

Only one reliable contradictory observation is needed to disprove a theory. The key word here is reliable. In practice, a result that contradicted a well-established theory would need to be reproduced in order for scientists to reject the theory.

23. In lab, you have learned that one characteristic that a good hypothesis is precision. Likewise, one characteristic of a good experimental measurement is precision. Why is it important that measurements be as precise as possible? Why is it important that hypotheses be stated as precisely as possible?

Having precise measurements is important because it makes us more certain of our experimental outcomes.

If measurements are too imprecise, we may not be able to distinguish between competing hypotheses.

Using precise hypotheses that lead to detailed predictions allows a rigorous test.

24. The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not Eureka! (I found it!) but Thats funny

-Isaac Asimov

In school, science is often presented as a rigid logical progression; however, in actual practice, many advances in science are the result of observing some phenomenon that was unexpected or not hypothesized, possibly even by pure luck. Many publications by experimentalists are simply reporting of something unexpected, possibly lacking any explanation. Why is it considered progress when an experimenter observes something bizarre or unexpected?

Unexpected discoveries point out ways that our theories were incomplete or incorrect.

Unexpected discoveries open up near areas for study.

Example: discovery of superfluidity

25. In designing a good experiment, it is often important to make sure that the test is controlled. What is a controlled test? Why is it important that experiments be controlled tests? Must all experiments be controlled tests?

In a controlled test, the experimenter alters one variable (the independent variable) while holding all other variables constant (control variables).

The key advantage of using a controlled experiment is that it isolates the independent variable. This allows us to test for causality. The change in the independent variable can be assumed to be the cause of any changes in a dependent variable.

If an experiment is not controlled, we can establish correlation but not causation.

Not all tests need to be controlled. In some cases controlled experiments are impossible.

26. Once a scientist or team or scientists has made a discovery, they typically make their work known to the science community by publishing in a peer-reviewed journal or presenting at conferences. Is publishing or presenting important to the progress of science? Why?

Publishing is important because it shares results with the scientific community.

Publishing is important because it subjects results to scrutiny of the scientific community.

Publishing is important because it allows other scientists to independently check the work.

Publishing is important because it allows scientists to share ideas.

27. It is often said that facts or theories in science become accepted only by testing. However, no scientist can possibly test everything for themselves. At some point, we have to rely on consensus within the scientific community to accept something. How does the scientific community come to consensus? What role does peer review of journal articles play in building consensus?

Some level of trust in published results is possible because by passing peer review a journal articles has been checked by a few other experts.

Consensus is built when several scientists have reproduced a result. When several journal articles have similar findings, the communitys confidence in the result increases.

28. Several of the uglier episodes of science history have been arguments over priority, i.e. who was first to understand or publish something. For example, Alexander Graham Bell and Elisha Gray went to court over an argument about who had invented the telephone. Now, scientists often rush their results to publication in order to stake their claim to priority. Why is it important to scientists to be the first to accomplish or discover something?

Scientists like priority because there is prestige associated with being the first to discover something.

Priority helps further a scientists career. The reputation that comes from doing groundbreaking work helps in getting funding, promotion, collaborators, etc.

29. One striking feature of science is that scientific explanations or theories are provisional, i.e. scientific explanations can and do change. Why is it important that scientists remain open-minded to change? If theories were accepted and not expected to change afterwards, would science still function?

Being open-minded is important because scientists are often wrong.

Science progresses by successive approximations. Theories are model that approximate reality. A theory is improved if it more accurately matches reality.

Producing better models is the primary goal of science. If we didnt change our ideas, we would never be learning.

30. Once a theory becomes well-developed or a phenomenon well-understood, it is natural for scientists to attempt to make use of their knowledge by inventing things. Are science and technology the same thing? Is technological application an essential part of the process of science?

Science is learning about how nature works. Technology is inventing objects for human use. These are not the same thing.

Science can proceed without having new technology as an end goal. Knowledge is a valuable goal in its own right.

However, the development of technology and science has been tightly intertwined throughout history. Having better technology allows for better experiments. More scientific knowledge often leads to new technology.

31. Throughout history, particularly before the development of modern science, many other fields of study have claimed to be scientific. A few examples are alchemy, astrology, and paranormal studies. What is the difference between science and pseudoscience or metaphysics? If you know anything about these examples of pseudoscience, why dont they qualify as science? Can you think of other examples of pseudoscience or metaphysics?

Pseudosciences often fall short because of some of the following: confusing correlation and causation, resorting to supernatural explanations, biased data (especially confirmation bias), or overgeneralizing.

32. People who dont understand science often attempt to use science in argumentation, but end up using non-scientific reasoning. For example, when Al Gores movie An Inconvenient Truth came out, many people objected to his claims that the Earths climate is changing by attacking Gores politics instead of critiquing the data he presented. Why is it important for scientific discourse that the focus be on the veracity of the data and conclusions, rather than personal attacks against the scientist?

The standard of evidence is reliable observations or measurements. The reputation or character of the studys author is irrelevant to the evidence.

If the scientists reputation or character were used as evidence, it would make the results subjective.

Personal attacks also are not good because they tend to be divisive instead of working together as a scientific community to better understanding.

33. In many non-scientific academic fields, researchers will study works from previous influential scholars and they may cite the opinions of famous scholars as a kind of evidence. Would it be a valid scientific argument to say, I believe that space is filled with aether, which is dragged along with Earth as it moves, because Descartes said this was the case.? Why or why not?

This is the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. Authority figures are still human, so they are fallible.

Scientists should be looking at evidence and deciding for themselves, not relying on an authority.

Another problem with this example is that it is out of date.

34. Another line of non-scientific reasoning identifies two successive, but unconnected, events and concludes that the first event caused the second. For example, a researcher might notice that on a day when it rained there was a large earthquake. They might erroneously conclude that the rain caused the earthquake. What conditions are necessary to conclude that one event causes another event?

The cause must occur before the effect.

The cause and effect must have a mechanism connecting them.

Cause-effect relationships should be reproducible.

In order for two events to be a cause-effect pair, they must not both be caused by some other event.

Ideally, in order to conclude that a cause-effect relationship exists we should attempt a controlled experiment.

35. One problem with the incorrect conclusion of causality in the previous topic was that it was based on only one occurrence, but the laws of nature should be reproducible. A related error would be to observe several occurrences, but analyze too few occurrences or an unrepresentative set of occurrences. For example, a phrenologer (somebody who studies skull shapes to attempt to determine personality characteristics) might find 5 people who have a forehead that bulges outwards and also below average intelligence. As another example, the phrenologer might find many people with bulging foreheads, some of which are below average intelligence and some of which are above average intelligence, but only consider the cases of below average intelligence in their data. In both of these examples, the phrenologer might incorrectly conclude that bulging foreheads cause below average intelligence. What exactly was wrong with the phrenologers reasoning in these examples?

In the first example, the problem is small sample size. The sample may also not be representative.

In the second example, the problem is that the phrenologer is biasing the results by neglecting some data. This is confirmation bias.

36. Modern science can be broadly classified into theoretical and experimental branches. Theorists and experimentalists work together to make progress in building better models of nature. What role do theorists play in the process? What role do experimentalists play in the process?

The main tasks of theorists are to brainstorm models and to use those models to generate predictions.

The main tasks of experimentalists are to check predictions of models and to gather data on situations for which we dont have comprehensive models developed yet.

Computation is a third emerging branch of physics. Computationalists brainstorm models and use computers to calculate the behavior of those models. They can do experiments in the simulations by changing input parameters.

There is a mutual relationship between experimentalists and theorists. Both generate ideas for the others to check/pursue. Experimenters might design their experiments to check a prediction from theorists. Theorists might develop models to try to explain new phenomena observed by experimentalists.

37. In class, we have been discussing physical models, such as the charge model. A model is a description of how we think the physical world works, usually including a set of rules for the behavior of physical objects. Is a model the same thing as physical reality, or does it just represent physical reality?

A model is a representation of reality, but is not the same thing as reality.

38. When we study science and learn something new, does physical reality change, or does our model of physical reality change?

When scientists make a discovery and change their models, the behavior of nature doesnt change. We assume that natures laws are always the same, even though our understanding of the fundamental laws changes.

39. A model is really a set of ideas held by the science community, instead of some real object. Some philosophers say that the job of scientists is to build better models. In light of this, what determines if a model is good?

A model is considered to be good if it can be used to make accurate predictions about experiments.

Scientists also sometimes use aesthetic considerations to evaluate models, though these aesthetics considerations are trumped if direct evidence is available. Aesthetic considerations can be simplicity of the model, internal consistency of the model, external consistency compared to other models, etc.

Science & society (Physics for Science & Engineering III)

1. Over the last few hundred years, science has become a major force in society. Why has science been so influential?

Science has been influential because it is effective at producing new knowledge. This success has given people confidence in science.

Modern society is largely based on economics and industry. Science has been instrumental in developing new technologies that have changed our way of life and enriched the economy.

Modern science is cross-cultural, and therefore a globalizing influence.

2. One result of scientific advances in the last two centuries has been the development of many new technologies. These technologies have drastically changed the way that we live our lives. Is technology generally good for people or bad for people?

Technologies are invented to meet human needs. In most cases, the goal of technology is to make life better in some way.

Encourage the students to think about what life would be like without technology. They will likely think about modern communications technologies, but push them to think about older technologies like wheels, ships, writing, and domesticated crops. These technologies have made survival easier.

There are also negative effects of technologies. Ask students to brainstorm. They will likely come up with weapons, depersonalizing of communication, facilitating laziness, etc.

Conclusion: On the whole, technology has made life better. Technology can be used for good or bad depending on the motivation of the people using it.

3. It is clear that new scientific knowledge is often developed into new technologies. Is there any relationship in the reverse direction? If a new technology is developed, can it further scientific knowledge?

New technologies often help develop scientific knowledge.

Example: Galileos telescope

Scientists use new technologies to make more precise measurements and to analyze more complex data sets.

4. One of the major funding sources for scientific research in the United States is the federal government, through agencies such as the Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Health, and the military. What benefits does the government get from funding scientific research?

Public health

Economic boost from new technology

Military power

Conclusion: The purpose of democratic government is to promote the welfare of the citizens. Therefore, the government has a vested interest to support science that benefits its citizens.

5. Much of the funding for scientific research comes from government agencies. What criteria should be used for funding decisions?

NSF uses two criteria: Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts

Intellectual Merit Is the proposed research feasible within the available budget and equipment? Are the researchers qualified? Is the knowledge gained from the proposed research likely to make a significant contribution to the field? Is the work creative, original, or transformative?

Broader Impacts Will the proposed research advance discovery? Does the research satisfy a need of society? Will the research train future scientists? Will the research involve underrepresented groups? How will the research be disseminated to society?

6. Much of the funding for scientific research comes from government agencies. Who do you think should decide which research to fund?

Congress determines how much money to allocate to research agencies.

Politicians are usually not qualified to determine scientific merit.

Funding decisions by government agencies are made by scientists. Science experts run the agencies.

Grant proposals are reviewed by volunteer scientists who are experts in the field.

7. The other major funding source for scientific research in the United States is industry. Many corporations give grants for research or operate their own research labs. The industrial research labs often even research topics that arent immediately applicable to the company. What benefits do industrial companies get from funding scientific research?

Research that is done by private corporations may result in patents that are owned by the corporation.

Findings of industrial research may eventually be used to develop new products that the corporation can sell.

Technology corporations depend on innovation in order to remain competitive in the marketplace.

8. Is it ethical for scientists to participate in research if they know their discoveries will be used for military purposes?

Remind the students in advance that this may be a sensitive topic. War is inherently inhumane and ugly, but it is part of the human condition. Be on the lookout especially for students who may have been impacted by war personally or through their family history. Avoid calling on these students unless they volunteer.

Defensive weapons Much military research is to develop technologies for defense, e.g. body armor or anti-missile defense. These products are often considered to be ethical because they protect lives.

Offensive weapons Most new offensive weapons are designed to be more precise, allowing for attacks of military targets with minimization of civilian casualties. This can be considered ethical because it makes war more humane.

Surveillance technologies Some military research goes to technologies for collecting intelligence. These can be used to prevent war or identify appropriate military targets. However, surveillance technologies should not be used to violate personal privacy.

Example: President Truman decided to use the atomic bomb during World War II because his military advisors told him that invading Japan would lead to more deaths of military and civilians than ending the war quickly by using the bomb.

9. There are instances in the Bible in which war was commanded or condoned. Under what criteria is it just to make war?

Point out that there is a large subdiscipline of theology on just war theory.

Some potential criteria for justly entering a war are:

Protection of innocent lives or human rights

War conducted under an competent established authority

Correction of a serious wrong

Sufficient probability that the war will achieve its aims

Last resort after diplomacy and other efforts fail

Benefits of the war must outweigh the harms of conducting the war

Once war has been entered, it should be conducted according to:

Acts of war should be directed toward enemy combatants, not neutrals or civilians

Acts of war should be directed towards legitimate military objectives

Fair treatment of prisoners of war

Weapons used should be as humane as possible

10. Once scientists have discovered some new knowledge, they typically report their results through publishing journal articles. Should there be any restrictions on who has access to published results? Does your answer depend on how the research was funded?

Free exchange of information is valuable to the progress of science, but often not practical because there are costs to publishing so journals usually charge subscription fees.

Grant proposals to government agencies are open record by law, because the public provides the funds. Principle: in general the funders should have access to the results.

Some advocate for free open access for scientists and for the general public.

Some results may cause danger to national security if they were shared openly.

11. Several associations, such as the American Physical Society, have issued statements indicating that distrust of scientists by the general public is a major societal problem. For example, when the tsunami in Japan last year damaged a nuclear power plant, many Americans feared that dangerous fallout would be blown across the Pacific Ocean by winds, even though several scientists publicly stated that there was no danger. Why might the public tend to distrust scientists? What steps can we take to help establish the reliability of the scientific community?

The public might distrust scientists because they dont understand how scientific results become accepted. This can be helped by better education to scientific literacy.

The public is aware of many instances in which scientists have been wrong. Being wrong is part of the process, but the public doesnt understand this.

The media contributes to the publics distrust of scientists by sensationalizing results. It would be better if more scientists directly engaged with the public.

Results should be presented to the public with their supporting evidence when possible.

12. Part of the reason the public doesnt trust scientists is because they dont understand how results become accepted in science. In modern science, research findings are submitted as journal articles. Each article must be approved in review by independent experts before it is published. The result is accepted because of an extended network of trust in the reviewers and other members of the scientific community. If scientific journals did not use peer review, would scientific results still be trustworthy? Why is it important to the peer review process that all members of the scientific community have integrity and honesty?

Start this topic with a brief overview of the peer review process.

Peer review helps results be reliable because they are checked thoroughly.

With peer review, the trust doesnt have to be in an individual scientist, but in the scientific community at large.

Integrity is essential to the peer review process.

Since scientists are seeking truth, they must be honest or they will mislead themselves.

13. Some people claim that science is ultimately responsible for environmental pollution, including global climate change. Are scientists responsible? How can science help to alleviate the problem?

Start with a very brief overview of the greenhouse effect and global climate change.

Since the technology that produces carbon dioxide was made possible by scientific advances, it is possible to lay some blame on the scientific community.

The choice to extensively use fossil fuels included all society, not just scientists, so scientists are certainly not fully responsible.

When adopting new technologies, people should think critically about the possible pros and cons of the technology.

In the case of global climate change, individuals should make responsible decisions about their energy usage.

14. Climate change has become a very politicized issue. Should scientists have any say in political debates on climate change or other issues? How should scientists go about engaging with political issues?

Scientific results that are relevant to the debate should be made publicly available, especially to policy makers.

Scientists can actively attempt to inform the public and policy makers by lobbying, public education, and media.

Scientists can join organizations to promote their preferred policy positions. Many formal associations of scientists, such as AAAS, make policy statements.

15. Before the advent of modern science, people used a variety of supernatural or superstitious reasons to explain phenomena. Science on the other hand attempts to explain all phenomena in entirely naturalistic terms. Has science decreased superstition? Does Christianity encourage or dispel superstition?

Superstition has decreased in modern societies since the foundation of modern science.

Christianity opposes superstition by prohibiting occult explanations. In the Christian worldview, the entirety of nature is under natural laws put in place by the Creator.

16. Some people claim that science has decreased the number of people who believe in God. Is this true? Some people also claim that the vast majority of scientists are atheists. Is this true?

The raw number of people who believe in God is larger now than at any previous point in the future due to population growth.

We dont have good statistics from historical eras, but there is no strong reason to believe that that percentage of people who believe in God has decreased substantially since the beginning of modern science.

It is demonstrably untrue that the vast majority of scientists are atheists. Exact stats vary by source. According to a 2009 Pew Society survey, approximately half of scientists believe in God or a higher power. The percentage of scientists who believe in God is approximately half the percentage for the general population, but atheists are not a strong majority of scientists.

17. Science is an alliance of free spirits in all cultures rebelling against the local tyranny that each culture imposes on its children.

-Freeman Dyson

Science has a long history of being countercultural. Many famous scientists have been iconoclasts and some even rebels. Why might scientists be likely to question cultural assumptions? Is there a limit to how far scientists should go in questioning cultural or intellectual norms?

Questioning established knowledge is built into the process of science. Scientists are more likely to question cultural assumptions because they are used to questioning in general.

Scientists generally believe in progress, so it is natural for them to try to make the world better.

18. Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.

Romans 12:2

This is one example of a biblical passage that can be interpreted as a call for Christians to live as part of a different culture than worldly people. Why is it important for Christians to question cultural values?

Cultural values are often against Gods values.

Cultural is tainted by sinful nature.

Following God calls for radical love that is often antithetical to normal cultural behavior.

Theological implications (Physics for Science & Engineering III)

1. From the time when universities were first founded, largely to train clergy and theologians, science (previously called natural philosophy) has been a part of the required curriculum. Why would the Church encourage the teaching of science to their priests?

The primary purpose of education is to train good thinkers. Science is an excellent way to develop critical thinking skills.

Because God is the Creator, it is natural to study the creation as one means to learn more about God.

Particularly in modern times, it is valuable for priests to know something about science because their parishioners might have questions about it.

2. God saw all that He had made. And it was very good.

Genesis 1:31

What does it mean to say that Gods creation is good?

This very has several interpretations:

Provision the creation has everything that is needed for people to thrive

Aesthetics the creation is inherently beautiful

Orderliness in contrast to competing ancient Near Eastern creation stories in which the cosmos was seen as a chaotic cosmic battle, Gods creation is ordered

Fullness the created creatures are capable of reproducing and filling the world

Functionality the laws allows the world to function without decaying

Purpose the creation fulfills its purpose of displaying Gods glory

3. Some people, in order to discover God, read books. But there is a great book: the very appearance of created things. Look above you! Look below you! Read it. God, whom you want to discover, never wrote that book with ink. Instead, He set before your eyes the things that He had made. Can you ask for a louder voice than that?"

-St. Augustine

Echoing Psalm 19 and Romans 1:19-20, Augustine and many other Christians throughout history have thought of Gods revelation as consisting of two books: the Bible and His creation. How can studying nature, i.e. science, help us learn about God? How can science be an act of worship?

By studying the details of Gods creation, scientists can better appreciate the goodness of creation.

Studying the Creation can show us Gods nature: His power, creativity, love, patience, faithfulness, appreciation of freedom and life.

The intricate workings of the creation reveal Gods plan for the universe.

God has given humans the task of caring for creation (see Genesis 2:15). Science allows us to fulfill this purpose more fully.

4. Christian thinkers have long tried to use logic to prove Gods existence. Some philosophers who have joined this cause are Descartes, Pascal (both mathematicians and physicists), C.S. Lewis, and Josh McDowell. The rise of Christian apologetics has closely paralleled the development of modern science and the logical tools included therein. Is there any value in trying to logically prove Gods existence?

Some scientific facts lend credence to belief in a Creator.

Nothing is ever fully proven in science. We cant expect scientific proof of Gods existence.

Faith will always be necessary.

5. In the October 21, 2005 edition of The Chronicle of Higher Education, the Dalai Lama, spiritual head of Buddhism, is quoted as saying in his book:

My confidence in venturing into science lies in my basic belief that as in science so in Buddhism understanding the nature of reality is pursued by means of critical investigation: If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.

If some new scientific discovery were to directly contradict Christian doctrines, what would you do?

Point out that this question is hypothetical.

Our desire should be for truth. The Dalai Lamas openness is laudable.

6. One traditional principle of logic is the principle of non-contradiction, which states that two contradictory statements cannot both be true or equivalently that two true statements cannot be contradictory. Suppose that the Bible makes a statement about the natural world and that science establishes a fact about the same aspect of the natural world. Is it possible for the scientific fact to contradict the Bible?

Point out that this question is hypothetical.

Our understanding of science is an interpretation of evidence, which is fallible.

Our understanding of Christianity is based on an interpretation of the Bible, tradition, and experience. This is also fallible.

We dont expect there to be a contradiction. If there is a contradiction, we should check our interpretations of both science and scripture.

7. One example of a historical conflict between a scientist and the Church is the affair of Galileo. Galileo supported a heliocentric model of the solar system, in which the Earth orbits the Sun, while several Bible verses (Ps. 93:1, Ps 96:10, I Ch. 16:30, Ecc. 1:5) say that the Earth does not move. At the time, the position of the Church was to interpret these verses literally. Was the Bible wrong, or was the problem with the Churchs interpretation of the Bible? How can this conflict be resolved in light of the principle of non-contradiction of truths?

Literal interpretation is tricky, because the authors intention is not always to be literal. Some of these passages are poetic.

We should keep in mind that the Bible we read is a translation from ancient languages. The translation may have distorted the original meaning.

Sound biblical interpretation should consider the cultural context of the author and audience.

The Galileo case appears to be a problem with interpretation of the scriptures. There is no conflict with Galileos findings and at least some valid interpretations of the scripture text.

8. "We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of the past and the cause of the future. An intellect which at any given moment knew all of the forces that animate nature and the mutual positions of the beings that compose it, if this intellect were vast enough to submit the data to analysis, could condense into a single formula the movement of the greatest bodies of the universe and that of the lightest atom; for such an intellect nothing could be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes."

-Pierre Simon Laplace, A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities

Some philosophers have used this to argue for determinism, the idea that all events in the universe including human behavior are predetermined. Is determinism consistent with the laws of physics? Is determinism consistent with Christian theology?

Determinism is not consistent with quantum mechanics as we currently understand it. There seems to be a fundamental randomness to physical processes.

9. Classical determinism is often combined with the philosophy of reductionism. Reductionism holds that all complex objects are made of atoms, and the atoms are subject to the laws of physics, so all events in nature are determined by a few simple laws. Reductionism can also be characterized by saying that human culture reduces to biology, biology reduces to chemistry inside cells, and chemistry reduces to physics. Is it true that all things can be reduced to fundamental laws, or are there some phenomena that cannot be reduced to the motions of atoms?

Reductionism has been highly fruitful for science, particularly physics. Studying simplified physical system and then generalizing to larger systems allows us to understand complex problems.

We do not have satisfactory reductionist explanations of phenomena like consciousness, social behaviors, etc.

Even if we had a detailed reductionist of human biology, for example how chemicals in our brains interact with neurons to produce neurological reactions that manifest as thoughts, this still wouldnt be a satisfactory explanation. To fully understand complex systems, we need to have multiple levels of understanding: microscopic, systematic, and emergent.

10. If classical determinism and reductionism are true, is freewill possible?

Yes. Even if our brains are controlled by reductionistic and deterministic chemical reactions, we still have at least a sensation of choice.

Our consciousness has clear effects on the chemistry of our neurons. This causality can be seen as free will.

11. Materialism-belief that nothing exists except matter

Dualism-belief that both matter and minds, spirits or idealized forms exist

Many philosophers, starting with Plato, have believed in dualism. With the rise of modern science, it has become more fashionable to believe in materialism. Are either of these views consistent with Christian theology?

Materialism is not consistent with Christianity. The Bible clearly teaches that non-physical beings (God and angels) and human spirits exist.

Various versions of dualism exist. A belief that all objects have a physical form and a non-physical essence is not consistent with Christianity.

Dualisms belief that both good and evil exist is consistent with Christianity.

12. The Notion of the Worlds being a great Machine, going on without the Interposition of God, as a Clock continues to go without the Assistance of a Clockmaker, is the Nation of Materialism and Fate, and tends, (under pretence of making God a Supra-mundane Intelligence,) to exclude Providence and Gods Government in reality out of the World.

-Gottfried Leibniz

The laws of science assume causality, i.e. one event happens and causes a later event to happen. If classical determinism is true, the chain of cause-effects continues indefinitely to the beginning of time. Is it true that everything that occurs is caused by something previous? If so, how is God involved in the universe?

Some philosophers who believe in determinism have used it to argue for a clockwork universe, which was created by God and then left to work without his intervention. This is not consistent with Christianitys teachings that God is continually involved with His creation.

Gods interventions in nature, e.g. miracles, may violate causality. This is within His infinite power.

Creation ex nihilo is a violation of causality.

13. Thomas Aquinas elaborated on the principle of causality by saying that everything that occurs has both a primary and secondary cause. The secondary cause is the immediately preceding physical event that caused something to occur via the laws of physics. The primary cause is a deeper level. According to Aquinas, God is the primary cause of all that happens by giving a purpose for the event and instituting the laws that allow the secondary cause to work. If events indeed have both primary and secondary causes, is God active in the universe? If events have both primary and secondary causes, is God subject to the action of secondary causes and the laws of physics?

Even if every event has a secondary physical cause, God can still be active in the universe by being the primary cause.

Secondary causes act on physical objects. Since God is not physical, secondary causes cannot act on Him.

14. In 1270 A.D., the University of Paris responded to Aristotelian natural philosophy by issuing a list of condemned statements; natural philosophers were not allowed to make or defend these statements, or they would be considered heretics. Several of the condemned statements would place limits on God, for example That God could not move the heavens with rectilinear motion; and th