DOCSLIB.ORG

Understanding Social Change Knowledge - What Is It?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Understanding Social Change Knowledge - What Is It? Understanding Social Change Knowledge - what is it? Kath Woodward Hello, I’m Kath Woodward and I’m joined today by Anne Scott who’s a Lecturer in Women’s Studies and Social Policy at the University of Bradford, and by Russell Stannard, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the Open University. Today we’re going to talk about knowledge, what is knowledge, how is it produced, and what different sorts of knowledge are there. Knowledge involves the production of meanings, of ideas, of ways of doing things and of ways of understanding the world. It’s not just about ideas, it’s about practices, it’s about what we do and what this means for how we understand the world we live in. Some forms of knowledge have more significance, perhaps more status than others. There is a privileging of some kinds of knowledge. One of the forms of knowledge in a contemporary world which might be seen to be privileged is that of scientific knowledge which has particular distinguishing features and it might be argued also has higher status than other forms of knowledge. What are the characteristics of scientific knowledge and of its methods? Russell, can you tell us a bit about what you think are the ways in which scientific knowledge are constructed and what distinguishes this. Russell Stannard So it’s the overwhelming characteristic is that scientific knowledge is fundamentally based in experimentation and observation of the physical world. It doesn’t matter how attached and enamoured you might be of some kind of theory that you have, if the data goes against it, then you have to abandon it which, of course, makes it sound as though scientific knowledge is very objective and, you know, you can’t question it. Indeed, that’s how it used to be thought, you know, you had the ideological positivist who had their verification principles saying that a great characteristic about scientific statements is that you can verify them, you can prove that they are right through experimentation. Karl Popper knocked that on the head when he pointed out that, in a sense, scientific statements are never verified. What you can do with a scientific statement is you can falsify it, you know, if something comes up from the data which goes against it, then you know that you’ve got something wrong. You can’t verify it, he said, because you can’t test out the statement under all conditions. You might have got agreement so far but you never know about what’s going to happen next time in some slightly different situation. An example of that is the Newtonian Mechanics which was thought to be on extremely strong grounds, but then it was discovered that when you test situations where the objects are moving at very high speeds, you know, close to the speed of light, everything just completely falls to the ground, just doesn’t work out at all, and what you then have to do is bring in relativity theory. Now that doesn’t mean to say that you have Newtonian Mechanics for slow speeds and relativity for high speeds. Relativity covers all those situations and you then discover that Newtonian Mechanics is just an approximation to the truth. So you might then think, well OK, we’ve now got the truth, special relativity and the answer is no, we haven’t because later on it was discovered that there was a thing called general relativity which takes into account gravitation and special relativity is just a special case of that, and we expect that there’s going to be yet another theory which we call a quantum gravity which will take into account what happens when you deal with the very small. So, as I say, you never know for certain in science whether you’ve actually got the truth. All you can say is that you’re closer to the truth and you prefer today’s theory to a previous one. Kath Woodward So it’s about approximations which it seems to be what you’re suggesting – even science is about approximations? Russell Stannard Yes, and there is this inherent sort of uncertainty about the whole thing as to whether you’re in fact even looking at the problem in the right kind of way, you know, we say that all data is theory-laden, now it’s not a case that the scientist goes into the laboratory and is confronted by pristine data. Why has he got that particular set of data? He’s decided to do that particular kind of experiment rather than some other kind of experiment and the reason why he goes for that is he’s got a particular theory in mind which is biasing him in a particular direction, and it might very well be that the really crucial experiment he ought to be doing is something entirely different. Kath Woodward You talk about the methods of scientific enquiry and mention, well you mentioned objectivity but also particular things like experimentation, do you think these would be seen as being attempting to be objective? Russell Stannard Oh yes, oh yes, I think that scientific investigation is based on the idea that there is a real world out there, it has a certain set of properties and our job is to try and describe as closely as we can what that world is like, but the trouble is we never know how close we’re getting. Kath Woodward We’re now going to listen to a short quote from Sandra Harding who points out some of the possible limitations of objectivity and also the gendered nature of science. “Objectivist justifications of science are useful to dominant groups that consciously or not do not really intend to play fair anyway. Its internally contradictory character gives it a kind of flexibility and adaptability that would be unavailable to a coherently characterised notion.” Kath Woodward What does this tell us about objectivity in relation to science, Anne? Would you like to comment on Harding here? Anne Scott Yeah, I think Harding’s pointing to some really interesting issues, although you pointed out Russell how the notional objectivity is understood in quite a complex way by practising scientists. One of the interesting things in the history of social science is that there’s been a history of taking this notion of objectivity and trying to apply it to the social sciences in a way that isn’t necessarily that easy to do, and also on to some of the life sciences that cross over on to the social sciences and the effect is to try to create a view from above, this notion that you’ve kind of got a bird’s eye view of the world, and somehow you can understand everything from some perspective that isn’t a perspective. And the problem is that particularly when you’re dealing with the social sciences and the social world there isn’t a view from above; we’re all situated somewhere, we’re all in a context, we all have a background, a history, a way of seeing the world. As Donna Haraway once said “experience can never be raw”. I think it’s a wonderful expression because what she’s pointing to is that we always interpret our experience through our history and our life. The problem is, is that when you have knowledge producers who are coming from a very narrow social group, then they can all see the world in the same sort of way, so if you have people biasing the kind of knowledge they see coming from their own perspective. If they’ve all come from the same perspective then the knowledge can be biased in a particular way without anybody really realising it and, as you pointed out, a whole series of issues when you’re talking about either social science or natural science knowledge, your background, your experience can come in, in terms of the sorts of questions you ask, or in terms of the sorts of evidence that you consider to be acceptable, or in terms of the way that you present that evidence when you’ve finished your work, or the way you interpret what you see. If you have a small group of people with all of the same sorts of biases in relation to that constructing knowledge together, they can then say we’ve come up with an objective universal way of seeing the world, our way of seeing the world is neutral. The problem with this view from above is that it seems to be neutral, it seems to be universal, but it isn’t really, and in people who have different ways of knowing, or different ways of interpreting the world because of their different histories or different experiences if they belong to less dominant social groups can find that their ways of knowing the world are de-legitimated, seem not to be authoritative, and in a sense they’re made invisible. So the effect then is that you’ve got a situation which isn’t fair and where knowledge is being used in a way which is very interrelated with the operation of social power. Kath Woodward Which seems to suggest that there is an interrelation between the objective and the subjective, that these aren’t things that you can separate out - would you say that this applies to science as well as to social science? Russell Stannard I would. Thomas Kuhn made this great point that scientists always work within a given paradigm, a certain way of looking at the world, and you then begin to find that certain things don’t fit in with that and you try to accommodate to it, you think well this is just an exception, we’ll find a way out of it, and then suddenly you discover that there’s a total paradigm shift and you suddenly get a much better match with the data by looking at the world in a totally different way.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Science and Belief: the Big Issues Biblical Inspiration from the Time of the Council of Trent (1540’S) to Vatican II in 1962 Are Also Briefly Stannard, R
    Reflections, Impressions & Experiences Changes in the Roman Catholic understanding of Science and belief: The big issues biblical inspiration from the time of the Council of Trent (1540’s) to Vatican II in 1962 are also briefly Stannard, R. (2012). Lion Hudson, Oxford. outlined. The point of this chapter is to show, in the author’s opinion, that Genesis and Evolution are not on a collision course if properly understood. Kevin de Berg The Intelligent Design (ID) chapter amounts largely to a discussion of the arguments for and Associate Professor, School of Science and against evolution. While suggesting that ID is Mathematics, Avondale College of Higher Education, Cooranbong, NSW essentially a “God of the Gaps” type of argument, Stannard claims that, “ID is at least a step on the way towards acknowledging that evolution has The subject of this book originally appeared taken place”. While some ID adherents might as a twelve-episode series for the BBC. The agree, others would disagree with this statement. author, Russell Stannard, is a physicist and Some common misconceptions of evolution such licensed lay minister in the Church of England as the wholly unpredictable nature of evolution who, although finding no conflict between are discussed in terms of the emergence of science and belief himself, allows the reader complexity by a process known as ‘convergence’ to make up their own mind after a stimulating which seems to be endemic to evolution. The discussion of the questions raised. author acknowledges the basic unfairness associated with evolutionary process, but also There are eight major issues raised in the book— recognises that “the deep mystery of premature that relating to Genesis and Evolution, Intelligent death, and indeed the other manifestations of Design, Morality, Creation, Anthropic Principle, life being unfair, has always been with us”.
    [Show full text]
  • Curriculum Vitae Professor Celia Evangeline Deane-Drummond MA (Cantab), Phd, Pgdip.C.S., BA(Hons), PGCE, Phd
    Curriculum Vitae Professor Celia Evangeline Deane-Drummond MA (Cantab), PhD, PGDip.C.S., BA(Hons), PGCE, PhD. Marital status Married. Two children Sara Elisabeth Drummond-Curtis, born 12/11/00. Mair Clare Drummond-Curtis, born 06/12/05. Current employment. Professor in Theology, University of Notre Dame, 130 Malloy Hall, Notre Dame, IN 46556, USA. Concurrent appointment with teaching responsibilities in the College of Science, August 2011. 1. Post-school education. 1977 BA (Honours) Degree in Natural Sciences, Part 2 Botany (2:1) Girton College, Cambridge University. Became MA in 1980. 1980 PhD in Plant Physiology, Reading University. Joint CASE award with Dr. Clarkson (ARC and Oxford University) and Dr. Johnson (Reading University). 1983 Post Graduate Diploma in Christian Studies (PGDip.C.S.) Regent College, Vancouver, Canada. 1989 BA (Honours) Degree in Theology, Trinity College, Bristol, CNAA (2:1). 1992 PhD, Manchester Victoria University, Department of Theological Studies. Supervisor, Professor R. Bauckham. 1994 Post Graduate Certificate in Education (Secondary), The Manchester Metropolitan University. Religious Education, second subject Science. 2.Career history. Date of first appointment to University College Chester: September 1994 as Lecturer in Theology. Promotion to Senior Lecturer in September 1996. Transfer to permanent contract in December 1998. Promoted to Reader in September 1999. Awarded a Professorial title in August 2000. College became University of Chester in 2005. Professor in Theology and the Biosicences, 2000-2011. 1991-1993 (Part-time) Manchester University, Visiting lecturer in theological studies department and Extra-mural department (Biology and Theology, Celtic Spirituality, Global Theology, Caring for the Earth) 1991-1994, International Consultancy for Religion, Education and Culture (ICOREC), Manchester Metropolitan University (Part-time).
    [Show full text]
  • Introductory Resources for the Interaction of Science and Christianity
    Introductory resources for the interaction of science and Christianity Steve Bishop The following list of resources is intended to facilitate the study Ian G. Barbour (ed.}, Science and Religion: New Perspectives on the of the interaction of science and Christianity. It is not an exhaus- Dialogue (SCM, 1968) tive list. I apologize for its far too British flavour. Religion in an Age of Science (SCM, 1990) The first volume of the 1989-91 Gifford Lectures. Bibliographies Oliver R. Barclay (ed.}, Christian Faith and Science (UCCF, 1988) Nigel M. de S. Cameron, Talking points: Science versus A collection of papers presented to various Christians in religion', Themelios 8.1 (1982), pp. 26-27 Science conferences. (Previously published as Science and Includes, as an addendum, a bibliography by John C. Sharp. Christian Belief in 1985.) Contributors include: Boyd, Works cited there will not be included in this listing. Hooykaas, MacKay, Russell and Tyrell. Christians in Science Education, List of Resources for Teachers on the Relationship between Science and Faith (CISE, 1991) John Hedley Brooke, Science and Religion: Some Historical Per- Available from CISE, split into eight categories, including spectives (Cambridge University Press, 1991) Miracles, Evolution, The nature of human personality and A 'historically based commentary' on the relationship Environmental issues. between science and religion. Finds the 'conflict' and 'harmony' models inadequate and suggests that 'theological Contemporary Issues in Science and Christian Faith: An Annotated and scientific concerns have been mutually relevant in the Bibliography past'. Also contains an extensive bibliographic essay. This resource book is published by the American Scientific Affiliation. It includes a list of video and audio tapes and a list Vincent Brummer (ed.}, Interpreting the Universe as Creation: A of speakers, as well as hundreds of books.
    [Show full text]
  • MERCHANT Scientist & Christian
    The Composed Self of the Scientist and Christian Paul Merchant, National Life Stories, The British Library This paper draws on extended life story interviews with five British men – all scientists and Christians – who have advanced arguments about relations between science and religion in books, public talks, and broadcasts. Close attention to the ways in which these interviewees have moved between scientific, Christian, and special ‘science and religion’ communities suggests that oral historians should beware of assuming that ‘composure’ is achieved by coherence or integration in lives and in life stories. Introduction: oral history theory In her book, Oral History Theory, Lynn Abrams uses biological metaphors to characterise the use of theory by oral historians in their efforts to understand complex interview material. Oral history is, she writes, “an octopus” [...] constantly evolving,”1 “a discipline with undisciplined tendencies, continually drawing upon other disciplinary approaches, and in flux as it defines acceptable practices and modes of theorising. It is at the same time profoundly interdisciplinary, a promiscuous practice that, jackdaw-like, picks up the shiny, attractive theories which have originated elsewhere and applies them to its own field of study.”2 Though she values oral history’s nimble, interdisciplinary resourcefulness, a note of caution is struck: “Oral historians have been more theoretically promiscuous than most in the historical profession – terms such as ‘intersubjectivity’, ‘narrative’, ‘discourse’ and ‘self’
    [Show full text]
  • The Portrayal of Creationists by Their Evolutionist Detractors — Bell Countering the Critics
    Countering the critics forces on this planet more dangerous to us all than The portrayal of the fanaticisms of fundamentalism … .’1 Steven Rose, a neuroscientist, is a self-professing materialist but a vocal critic of ultra-Darwinism and re- creationists by ductionism. Nevertheless, he is careful to distance himself from their main opponents: their evolutionist ‘In attacking ultra-Darwinism in this way I want to make it absolutely clear that I have no intention of departing from a materialist view of life, nor of detractors giving any ground at all to anti-Darwinian funda- Philip B. Bell mentalists, creationists or New Age mystics of any shape or hue.’2 The writings of several prominent evolutionists have The intended impression is that fundamental, Bibli- been critically examined for comments about cre- cal views equate to bigotry because of their insistence on ationists. Their remarks are invariably dis paraging ‘unwarranted’ interpretation of Genesis (or believing the or misrepresent the creationist position, and can Bible at all). Furthermore, this has the effect of blinding be placed into several categories, according to the this deviant minority to the ‘factual’ support for evolution tactics used. Only rarely are creationists’ opinions from biology and paleontology. Richard Fortey is a senior accurately portrayed. Rather, there is clear bias paleontologist at the Natural History Museum, London, and (against Biblical views), and the authors make no the author of several books. He concurs: attempt to substantiate the claims being made. ‘The great battles which palaeontology fought in Also, some instances of evolutionists’ flawed logic the nineteenth century (and sadly continues to fight are described.
    [Show full text]
  • Opening the Door to the Quark-Gluon Plasma
    NUCLEAR MATTER Opening the door to the quark-gluon plasma Recent experiments at CERN (April, pl3) using high-energy beams of nuclei reported evidence for a quark-gluon plasma. Interpreting such evidence is not straightforward, and this article underlines the physics message. A nucleus is like oranges stacked in ochemical potential (a measure of a bag - with discernable "fruit" or the nucleon density) of about nucleons (protons and neutrons) 765 MeV. The nucleon density is and spaces in between. Crush the about 0.145 fm-3 and the energy bag and the oranges dissolve into density is about 0.135 GeVfnr3. juice, which fills the reduced space. Compressing nuclear matter, so A pip that once belonged to a par­ that the nucleons start to interpene­ ticular orange is now free to move trate and overlap (by at least 3%), anywhere. In the same way, when a makes the intervening vacuum dis­ nucleus is crushed, it dissolves into appear. Each nucleon dissolves and a plasma of quarks and gluons. its constituent quarks and gluons These, once imprisoned inside a are free to move inside a larger vol­ particular nucleon, are free to move ume, which has become very dense inside a much larger volume. Phase diagram of nuclear matter, showing the boundary by compression. A new state of mat­ In ordinary nuclear matter a between (below) ordinary nuclear matter composed of ter is now formed - the deconfined nucleus consists of nucleons with a nucleons and the quark-gluon plasma (QGP), formed QGP - with a critical nucleon density vacuum between them. Each nuc­ when ordinary nuclear matter is compressed and/or and an energy density of greater leon has a volume of about 2fm3 heated.
    [Show full text]
  • Russell Stannard Interviewed by Paul Merchant: Full Transcript of The
    NATIONAL LIFE STORIES Science and Religion: Exploring the Spectrum. Life Story Interviews Russell Stannard Interviewed by Paul Merchant C1672/03 IMPORTANT This interview and transcript is accessible via http://sounds.bl.uk. © The British Library Board. Please refer to the Oral History curators at the British Library prior to any publication or broadcast from this document. Oral History The British Library 96 Euston Road London NW1 2DB United Kingdom +44 (0)20 7412 7404 [email protected] Every effort is made to ensure the accuracy of this transcript, however no transcript is an exact translation of the spoken word, and this document is intended to be a guide to the original recording, not replace it. Should you find any errors please inform the Oral History curators. The British Library National Life Stories Interview Summary Sheet Title Page Ref no: C1672/03 Collection title: ‘Science and Religion: Exploring the Spectrum’ Life Story Interviews Interviewee’s surname: Stannard Title: Professor Interviewee’s Russell Sex: Male forename: Occupation: Professor of Physics Date and place of birth: 24th December 1931, Brixton, London Mother’s occupation: bus conductress Father’s occupation: doorman for London Electricity Board Dates of recording, Compact flash cards used, tracks (from – to): 15/01/2015 (track 1-3), 12/02/2015 (track 4-5), 25/06/2015 (track 6-7), 05/08/15 (track 8-10) Location of interview: British Library, London Name of interviewer: Paul Merchant Type of recorder: Marantz PMD661on compact flash Recording format : audio file 12 WAV 24 bit 48 kHz 2-channel Total no. of tracks 10 Mono or stereo: Stereo Total Duration: 12 hrs.
    [Show full text]
  • Science & Belief
    Science & Belief The Big Issues Notes for Church Discussion Groups Written by Russell Stannard Learning activities to accompany Professor Russell Stannard’s series of video discussions on the major questions and controversies concerning science and belief. Acknowledgements These notes are published by Christian Education to accompany the DVD Science & Belief and the films available on www.youtube.com. The project was made possible through the support of a grant from the John Templeton Foundation. The opinions expressed in these notes are those of the participants in the films and do not necessarily reflect the view of the John Templeton Foundation or Christian Education. Video production by Two Cats Can Limited: www.twocatscan.co.uk Designed and typeset by Christian Education 1020 Bristol Road Selly Oak Birmingham B29 6LB © Christian Education Publications 2012 Introduction: for the course organiser The problem The Times newspaper recently carried a front page story announcing that cosmologist Stephen Hawking had a theory that does away with the need for a Creator God. At the same time, topping the bestselling book list was biologist Richard Dawkins’ attack on religion entitled The God Delusion, based on his Channel 4 TV series The Root of All Evil. Such biased media coverage is understandable. A banner headline ‘God is Dead’ boosts circulation and viewing figures in a way that ‘God is Alive and Well, and Still in Charge’ would not. But it does pose a problem: Where does one turn if one wishes to assess the relationships between science and religious belief in a sensible, balanced and well-informed manner? The solution? This course might be the answer.
    [Show full text]
  • ROBERT JOHN RUSSELL January, 2019
    Curriculum Vitae (Abbreviated) ROBERT JOHN RUSSELL January, 2019 EDUCATION Ph.D. (Physics). University of California, Santa Cruz. 1978. M.A. (Theology). Pacific School of Religion, Berkeley. 1972. B.D. Magna cum Laude. Pacific School of Religion, Berkeley. 1972. M.S. (Physics). University of California, Los Angeles. 1970. B.S. (Physics; minor in music and in religion). Stanford University. 1968. PRESENT POSITIONS The Ian G. Barbour Professor of Theology and Science The Graduate Theological Union, Berkeley, 2006 - present. Founder and Director The Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, Berkeley. 1981 - present. PRIOR POSITIONS Ian G. Barbour Professor of Theology and Science The Graduate Theological Union, Berkeley, 2016-present Ian G. Barbour Professor of Theology and Science In Residence, The Graduate Theological Union, Berkeley. 1991 - 2016. Associate Professor of Theology and Science In Residence, The Graduate Theological Union, Berkeley. 1986 - 1991. Assistant Professor of Theology and Science The Graduate Theological Union, Berkeley. 1982 - 1985. Assistant Professor of Physics Carleton College, Northfield, Minnesota. September 1978 - June 1981. PRIZES PCRS/Templeton Grant for Research, Writing and Publication: To support research on the project: Time in Eternity: Pannenberg, Physics and Eschatology in Mutual Interaction (University of Notre Dame Press, 2012). Prize for Outstanding Books in Theology and Science, co-editor, Chaos and Complexity: Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action (1995). Prize for Exemplary Papers in Humility Theology, “Finite Creation Without A Beginning,” 1992. HONORS Fellow, the American Scientific Affiliation, 2015-present. Founding Member, International Society for Science and Religion, 2002 Alum of the Year, Pacific School of Religion, 1999 C. V.: Robert John Russell 1 of 14 pages Judge, The Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion, 1994-1997 Judge, CTNS Science and Religion Course Prize, 1994-95; 2000-2001 Judge, FASE Essays, 1997.
    [Show full text]
  • Physics Michael Fosmire Purdue University Libraries, [email protected]
    Against the Grain Volume 24 | Issue 1 Article 39 2012 Collectiing to the Core -- Physics Michael Fosmire Purdue University Libraries, [email protected] Debra Kolah Rice University Libraries, [email protected] Anne Doherty CHOICE/ACRL, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/atg Part of the Library and Information Science Commons Recommended Citation Fosmire, Michael; Kolah, Debra; and Doherty, Anne (2012) "Collectiing to the Core -- Physics," Against the Grain: Vol. 24: Iss. 1, Article 39. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/2380-176X.6109 This document has been made available through Purdue e-Pubs, a service of the Purdue University Libraries. Please contact [email protected] for additional information. Collecting to the Core — Physics by Michael Fosmire (Physics Librarian, Purdue University Libraries; Physics Subject Editor, Resources for College Libraries) <[email protected]> and Debra Kolah (User Experience Librarian, Rice University Libraries) <[email protected]> Column Editor: Anne Doherty (Resources for College Libraries Project Editor, CHOICE/ACRL) <[email protected]> Column Editor’s Note: The “Collecting to the Core” column highlights monographic by. Then he meets a young travelling salesman works that are essential to the academic library within a particular discipline, inspired by along with his elderly great-granddaughter due the Resources for College Libraries bibliography (online at http://www.rclweb.net). In each to the time dilation caused by general relativity. essay, subject specialists introduce and explain the classic titles and topics that continue to When faced with a quantum constant (h) much remain relevant to the undergraduate curriculum and library collection.
    [Show full text]
  • Paul Davies; Oxford University Press 2006)
    Curriculum Vitae Paul C.W. Davies Beyond: Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science Arizona State University http://beyond.asu.edu P.O. Box 871504, Tempe, AZ 85287-1504 (480) 727-0774 Fax: 480 965 7954 [email protected] Nationality: British & Australian Education/degrees BSc First Class in Physics, University College London, 1967 Ph.D, Physics Department, University College London, 1970 DSc honoris causa, Macquarie University, Sydney (2006) DSc honoris causa,, Chapman University, California (2009) Professional Appointments 2006- Director, Beyond: Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science, Co-Director ASU Cosmology Initiative, College Professor, Arizona State University 2001 - 2006 Professor of Natural Philosophy, Macquarie University 1998 - Visiting Professor, Department of Physics, Imperial College London 1998 - Adjunct Professor, Department of Physics, University of Queensland 1993 - 1997 Professor of Natural Philosophy, Department of Physics, The University of Adelaide 1990 - 1993 Professor of Mathematical Physics, The University of Adelaide 1980 - 1990 Professor of Theoretical Physics, University of Newcastle upon Tyne 1972 - 1980 Lecturer in Mathematics, King's College, University of London 1970 - 1972 Research Fellow, Institute of Theoretical Astronomy, University of Cambridge Professional organizations Fellow, UK Institute of Physics Chartered Physicist (CPhys), UK Institute of Physics Fellow, Australian Institute of Physics Fellow, World Economic Forum Fellow, Royal Literary Society Honorary Fellow, Indian Astronomical Society
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Science, Temporality, and Divine Action
    Natural science, temporality, and divine action Polkinghorne, John In the twentieth century, science has discovered that the universe itself has had a history-that the cosmos was very different in the past from how it is today and that it will be different again in the future; that space is relational and not absolute; that the passage of time and judgments of simultaneity are observer- dependent assessments. The Newtonian picture of the ceaseless rearrangements of the components of an essentially unchanging world, taking place within the fixed container of space and during the steady flow of an absolute time, is no longer on the scientific agenda. Instead, the universe is perceived as relational and endowed with becoming. Yet absolutes remain, such as the speed of light acting as the limit on the rapidity of information transfer. In relativity theory (in the scientific sense), not all dissolves into a relativistic haze (in the popular sense). These scientific discoveries carry some influence over into metaphysics and on into theology. The relationships involved are not those of strict entailment, for each discipline has its own due autonomy. Physics constrains metaphysics but it does not determine it. Yet there are certain clusters of consonant ideas that naturally associate with each other. The progression in forming such a cluster is first to abstract from science a metascientific view of aspects of physical process, then to incorporate this view within an appropriately extended wider metaphysical scheme, and finally to correlate with the latter a consonant theological understanding. At each stage of this formation, there is scope for argument and dissent, but certain associations of ideas emerge that seem persuasive and that have exerted considerable influence on contemporary thinking.
    [Show full text]