:HIST/HUM/PHYS 361: Science and Culture What is this course about anyways? Einstein the Cynic claims: "Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned in school."

Thematic divisions-nic In the first segment we focus on the development / emergence of science and scientific inquiry into nature as a discipline distinct from religion, magic and theology. In the second segment the focus is on the development of physical models of nature and how instruments [e.g., the telescope] facilitate the practice of scientific inquiry. In this phase science has little direct impact on daily life. In the third segment attention turns to relationship between humans, science, and the environment. Applied Science (industrialization, engineering, technology) emerges. Science and technology directly affect daily life. Quote from einstein. 1: both deal with nature, but do so from radically different perspectives 2: cosmological: an important assumption, cosmos=equals order. We assume at some level that there is an identifiable order in natural events; might be degrees of probability 3: religion assumes that human behavior affects nature; in the modern period and perhaps for different reasons, human behavior can have that effect…at least in some cases?

To have both provides a kind of security? Something humans crave? In scientific inquiry skepticism and humility are pervasive: ‘reality and clarity are not possible at the same time’and ‘opposites are complementary’. “the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth” Niels Bohr [nic] That is, one cannot have both clarity and reality at the same time; and opposites may both be ‘true’. Nonetheless, in the popular imagination we want to believe that we can have both clarity and reality. Why? To have both provides a kind of security? Something humans crave? That is, cultural expectations / aspirations / hopes often get in the way of determining reality = Bias. So too is the determination of ‘reality’ handicapped by incomplete data, instrument failure, etc. «Klarheit und Wahrheit sind (gleichzeitig) nicht möglich» (Niels Bohr, Atomphysiker und Nobelpreisträger).

Questions I Both science and religion deal with understanding ‘nature’. What are the differences and similarities in achieving this understanding? How does culture promote or discourage scientific discovery? What happens when science conflicts with cultural truths? What impact, beyond the development of technology, does science have on culture? Do humans use science to justify political, social, cultural policies? What is the “Truth” and who is its “gatekeeper”? What is the relation between humans and nature in science versus religion? What does it mean when we claim to find order in nature? Is this order real or do humans use this to suggest that Nature is understandable. If there is no “order” can there be science? Does order require an “Orderer”? How does culture promote or discourage scientific investigation? Support for military research? To cure cancer? To explore the universe? The chemistry of human behavior? How does the triumph of a new scientific paradigm affect culture? Man no longer at center of universe? Chemistry can promote human health, but it can also be used in warfare

Questions III [nic] Consider these words: "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.” Quote from Einstein on “god does not play at dice”. Overview of chaos theory: the more closely one examines the orderly the more chaotic it appears; the more closely we examine chaos, the more orderly it appears to be.

Sub Texts [gb] Issues that will permeate the course… Cooperation versus Competition as the means to achieve the ‘more perfect’ and / or ideal state/government Why do we so easily treat nature as a consumable? Nature would seem to have no spiritual value but is just a machine. Are humans really separate and distinct from nature?

More Sub Texts [nic&gb] Why do we require certainty in order to make decisions? Can we trust our senses? How can we ‘be sure’? How do reason and experience interact? Is rationalism superior to empiricism? Or the latter superior to the former? Is Revelation to be preferred? Has anything really changed for 10,000 years in terms of human behavior and human/institutional structures? Has science ever impacted the way in which society functions? What does it mean to be ‘enlightened’?

On the role of science in the world order [nic] Many religions claim to have a redeemer who can lead the chosen and enlightened people to a better world. Some believe that “Science” can play this role, namely that those “enlightened” by science can lead us to a better world. What do you think? Marx and Engels argued for ‘scientific socialism’ and the best way to improve the human condition; Luther and the Churches argued for the primacy of Revelation. What are we to do?

Max Planck [nic&gb] “We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up to now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future.” Whatever can he mean? And what are the implications?