Debate about science and religion continues

The issues of scientific validity and science versus pseudoscience were never addressed in any courses I took as an undergraduate science major, and I observe the same situation in today’s university introductory science courses. How are undergraduates—or graduate students, for that matter—supposed to learn these things? Murray Peshkin is correct when he says, “We need to do better.”

For about the past five years, I have begun my introductory astronomy courses with a detailed interactive talk on the nature of science and critical thinking. I incorporate a study of logical fallacies, another item missing from most science courses. I use actual letters to the editor of the local newspaper as debunking fodder. This introduction to critical thinking takes about two weeks, but by the end of the semester, my students know how to tell science from pseudoscience and belief, and they know how to gauge the scientific validity of a claim. Instructors who leave this material out of their courses are doing a great injustice to students and to science in general. The presentation I use in my classes is available on my website http://www.sticksandshadows.com ) along with a small but growing collection of custom applications of critical thinking to astronomy.

All introductory science courses should be built around critical thinking, with examples from the various scientific disciplines providing applications. If students never understand the nature of science, they will never truly understand how and why we know about exotic entities like black holes.

My experience has been that students welcome discussion on the differences between science and religion, a necessary topic when it comes to critical thinking. In a recent semester, three students told me they were planning to become ministers, and they appreciated the opportunity to develop critical-thinking skills. One of these students told me that elders in his church warned him to avoid science classes because they would be a waste of time and would not help him become a better minister. How much clearer does the need have to be before we do something about it?