LACKING CHEMISTRY

OK, this one is going to blow some of y'all's minds.

As you may know, I'm a science teacher. In fact, this year I'm teaching Chemistry. Chemistry, which is a standards-based science course. Chemistry, which is mandated by the State of Kali-forn-ya. Chemistry, which satisfies the University of California's laboratory science requirement (not all science courses do). Chemistry, which you pretty much have to take and do better than average in to get admitted to a UC-type school.

Guess what my school district bureaucrats authorized over the Christmas break? No, guess, really. What do you suppose that they could do that could possibly hurt Chemistry the MOST?

Give up?

How about confiscate ALL of the chemicals in our stockrooms, $40,000 worth, without so much as an explanation? I'm not making this up, mind. We had previously been assured that an OSHA-type review would not take place until after a formal inventory, but what actually happened at our site and throughout the district was wholesale raping of science supplies, including stock that was essentially brand new. The whole business is completely nonsensical: how can you do Chemistry with no chemicals?

And, while we're on the subject, how can they expect that we science teachers are going to stand by and not raise an unholy clamor of protest? Hoping that calmer heads prevail, we intend to submit a list of the confiscated items that need to be returned or replaced in order for us to do the labs already planned. If that doesn't happen...well.....let's just say that some of us will be contacting the University of California, the state Department of Education and WASC. We can't pretend that a Chemistry course without labs satisfies their requirements, and we are pretty much obligated as professionals to make sure that agencies involved with accreditation are apprised of that fact. And students. And parents. And the media.

Again, let's hope that the district fixes its mistake, so that cooler heads may prevail.

STAN-DING DISCUSSION #1a

OK, in response to the previous question Stan writes:

"...a working scientist has to believe that for each physical effect there exists a physical cause that is measurable and repeatable per the rules of empiricism, otherwise the efforts toward empirical resolution would be futile."

I hasten to say that the italics (and thus the emphasis) are mine, and that I've chosen to highlight this term to point out an area of doubt. I do not think that a 'working scientist' is obliged to 'believe' the above, for a number of reasons:

1) 'Belief' implies an act of faith; I do not think you have to take anything on faith to be a working scientist. Operationally, one can simply accept a certain claim is axiomatic or foundational for the purposes of doing work. Empiricism could be thought of as a belief system, but it could also be seen as an epistemological hypothesis, held provisionally like any other hypothesis within science....

2) Therefore, empiricism in the latter sense would not assert that for each physical effect there must be a physical cause that is measurable/repeatable, etc. This 'working scientist' would recognize that there are anomalous events detectable by the senses which do not seem to have a discernible physical cause, or which fall below the threshold of measurement, or which are unlikely to be repeatable on the basis of what is presently known. Note that none of these conditions necessarily implies an appeal to a non-physical cause, just a healthy skepticism about what can be known...

3) In any case, with or without the non-physical/immaterial/supernatural etc. there is nothing which obligates the working scientist to do anything other than work within the axioms of science, and empiricism as a belief system does not appear to be one of science's axioms, or else how could Newton cast horoscopes, or A.R. Wallace enthusiastically embrace spiritualism, etc.? As far as 'efforts toward empirical resolution' being futile, the question is not whether we have a complete or entirely accurate description, but whether a given model is the best at explaining the greatest number of observations. To the extent that this is true, the model is accepted provisionally as the best fit to its data. This is entirely sufficient to do science, and it no more or less futile an endeavor than painting a picture or writing a sonnet is futile.

STAN-DING DISCUSSION #1

I've been asked to enter into a sort of dialogue about the philosophy of science by Stan, who appears to be a regular commenter over at Vox's place and who has both a blog and a web site to promote his views. Stan identifies himself as a "A 40 year Atheist" who "analyzes Atheism, without resorting theism, deism, or fantasy."

My guess is that Stan would like to draw attention to what he feels is an original analysis of atheism, but one that would lead to some sort of modification/rejection of conventional non-belief. That's certainly what a cursory look at his stuff would suggest, but y'all check it out and make up your own minds. I want to say upfront that I don't know Stan, nor do I know exactly where he wants to go with this exchange, but I'm game, especially if I get some kind of new insight as to the limits of science, faith, etc.

So, after some discussion, we agree upon this starting question:

"Is there anything that compels a working scientist (who tends to function, albeit not exclusively, as an empiricist) into adopting either naturalism or materialism as a private matter?"

Stan's response can be found here. I will reply to him soon, hopefully tomorrow.