AREAS OF KNOWLEDGE: THE NATURAL SCIENCES
Within the Theory of Knowledge course, you will explore knowledge questions related to one or more 'areas of knowledge'. These 'areas of knowledge' are fields of study in which we try to gain knowledge through the ways of knowing. The areas of knowledge roughly correspond with the groups of study within the IB programme, even though there are some additional realms of knowledge such as ethics, religion and indigenous knowledge which are relevant to TOK. Within your TOK classes, you will also explore boundaries and overlaps between different areas of knowledge. The knowledge frameworks are useful tools to analyse the historical development, language, methodology and scope of each area of knowledge. Given that we need to make links between different areas of knowledge, it is not advisable to discuss areas of knowledge in complete isolation.For practical purposes, however, I have organised the resources per area of knowledge. It is up to you to explore them and make further links between areas of knowledge and ways of knowing. Doing so will hopefully inspire you to develop interesting knowledge questions, which form the basis of TOK assessment. This page deals with the natural sciences as an area of knowledge.
Knowledge frameworks, questions and possible topics of study in natural sciences (TOK guide 2015):
|
|
The natural sciences
The natural sciences currently enjoy a great status within many knowledge communities. This is partly due to its relatively recent successes and achievements. The contribution of the natural sciences to knowledge is a whole is undoubtedly enormous. Discoveries in its field have helped us to understand better what drives us as human beings, how our planet has evolved and even what the universe may look like. But natural sciences were not always as highly regarded. There have been cases were scientific hypothesis were seen as ludicrous and even dangerous because they did not fit within the dominant way of thinking (cognitive paradigm). Science had to fit in with the world view of the time and not the other way around. Nowadays it seems that the tables have turned. Once upon a time, some scientific discoveries were rejected because they did not fit in with the paradigms of religious knowledge systems. Nowadays, some people reject (their) religion because it does not fit in with the scientific way of thinking.
Western civilisation went through a major cognitive paradigm shift around the 17th Century. Discoveries by Galileo and Newton challenged the prevalent dominant discourse. A new theory of knowledge primarily based on empirical evidence and reason was created. Scientific evidence soon became synonymous with 'ultimate proof' and religious knowledge was challenged by scientific sceptics. This scientific revolution brought about major changes in the way we thought about the world, particularly in the West. Mankind arguably benefited in many ways from this cognitive paradigm shift and with an increased understanding of the world around us, living standards and education generally improved.
Nevertheless, one should not forget that sometimes even the greatest scientists can be wrong. What was considered scientific knowledge at some stage in history may currently be considered inaccurate. And as our scientific knowledge advances, we have to revise previous ideas. Our understanding of atoms and human DNA has evolved considerably over the last century, new elements have recently been added to the periodic table, and the list goes on and on. Last but not least, we should remember that some scientists have even become guilty of scams and hoaxes such as Piltdown hoax. The drive to come up with ground breaking scientific discoveries has led some researchers to tamper with data and evidence. The more recent case of Andrew Wakefield and the MMR vaccine (see lesson at the bottom of this page) also highlights the importance of peer review and the questioning of expert opinion in the field of the natural sciences.
A scientist tries to paint a picture of the natural world through the scientific method. This method is based on observation and hypothesis. After experimentation, scientists may formulate a law and ultimately a theory. A scientific law "predicts the results of certain initial conditions" (TED ed below). In short, it predicts what will happen. A scientific theory, on the other hand, "provides the most logical explanation as to why things happen as they do". In short, it proposes why things happen. Sometimes scientific laws stand the test of time, whereas theories don't. Kepler's laws of planetary motions are still used today, for example, whereas his theory of musical harmony has now been replaced with gravity to explain why the planets move the way they do (see TED ed, theory versus law). It is expected that scientists can repeated experiments that should prove their knowledge claims in a range of controlled conditions. We also actively try to prove each other wrong in the natural sciences through a process which is called 'falsification'. We continually revise and review what counts as scientific knowledge. This process is quite important in the context of theory of knowledge and it is a topic of study you many want to explore further. Scientific laws generally don't change much, unless new data or information becomes available. Scientific theories, however, may co-exist and be discarded at different points in time. Experts may disagree, even when they have access to what seems to be the same facts and data. What counts as the best possible explanation at one stage in history, may sound implausible at another point in time. As mentioned in the TED ed below "multiple scientific theories may compete to provide the best possible explanation of a new scientific discovery". So how do scientists decide which theory is the best? It is usually a theory that explains most data and a theory that can predict what was not observed yet before. For example, Mendeleev had predicted the existence of several undiscovered elements. A theory that is not backed up with much evidence from experiments and data is not usually regarded as very scientific. Theories like the big bang, climate change and evolution seem to have withstood the test of time and are generally accepted today. We can find many historical examples of where the scientific world had actually accepted the wrong theory (eg the geocentric model), but it is hoped that scientific progress can be made by the continual testing and falsification of theories. This is what makes science different from a dogma. Interestingly, the TED talk below does acknowledge that incorrect theories have their value and that they sometimes may give rise to the creation of new theories and scientific discoveries. Not all current scientific theories will be accepted in the future and it is perhaps a good thing that experts often disagree within a disciple. It is up to us as knowers, however, to analyse the acceptability of scientific knowledge claims and theories; to check under what circumstances we should or shouldn't accept expert opinion, keeping in mind the historical evolution of scientific theories.
Within the natural sciences we rely heavily on sense perception and reason. Advances in technology have allowed us to create better tools to observe, but they equally highlight that human beings remain to some extent 'ignorant knowers' due to the human limitations of sense perception. Reason, and particularly inductive reasoning, plays a major role within the scientific method. Inductive reasoning can lead to the creation of knew scientific knowledge. Nevertheless, with inductive reasoning comes the danger of hasty generalisations. Would it be possible or desirable to observe everything all the time to avoid the latter?
Lots of your scientific knowledge is in fact second hand knowledge you gained (at school) through language. Under which circumstances should we accept this second hand knowledge? Good science should actively invite peer-review and re-testing through experimentation. But is this always the case? What do you conclude when an experiment 'does not work'? What if scientists are not open to reviews? What should we believe if we are confronted with two seemingly opposing theories? And on what basis can we decide scientific studies were conducted correctly? Ben Goldacre points out how 'bad science' permeates popular culture and belief. Should we perhaps be wary of scientific knowledge claims (in media) which rely too much on emotive language (often fear)?
The knowledge frameworks make us question how the concepts and language we use influence the conclusions we reach. Scientific language feels more neutral or distant than the language we use in every day conversation. Cancer explained in scientific terminology (neoplasms, carcinoma, lymphoma, etc) is very different from the 'language' of Stromae's artistic interpretation. What is so scientific about science and its concepts? What are its strengths? And its limitations? Is scientific language neutral or reductionist? When we define love in scientific terms, we may ignore nuances which artists can grasp, for example. But do we really want doctors to communicate our medical conditions through emotionally loaded language or even poetry?
Moving from the field of the arts, which we traditionally associate with imagination, I would like to suggest that there may be more room for imagination in the natural sciences than we expect. It is argued that several historical scientific discoveries such as Kekule's notion of the benzene molecule were driven by scientists' imagination. Einstein is often quoted as an advocate of imagination, even though your maths or science teachers will not always encourage you to use more imagination within their lessons. Helen de Cruz and Johan de Smedt argue that (progress in) science is in fact a form of structured imagination, whereby analogies with knowledge in other fields (areas of knowledge) rather than a unstructured imagination (as in Kekule's dream) drive scientific discoveries. In fact, our intuitions about the natural world are often not very scientifc (for example, children across the world intuitively feel that earth is flat). But by transferring distant analogies, we can overcome these intuitions and make scientifc progess through what de Cruz and de Smedt call 'structured imagination'.
And what about faith? Is there room for faith in the natural sciences? Is there a point were we should stop? Do we simply cross the boundaries of what counts as natural sciences if we allow for too much faith, too much imagination, too much intuition?
The history of medicine as a discipline illustrates that there were times when the lines between science and pseudo-science were blurry. I would argue that with the increased quick dissemination of information through current media, pseudo-science has somewhat gained in popularity. We simply don't take the time to check our sources or the methodologies behind the latest discoveries before we share 'news' with someone else. Sometimes it is hard to distinguish between bad science (see Goldacre below) and pseudo-science as both 'sciences' resort to confirmation bias. Astrology is one of the more traditional examples of pseudo-science. It draws on confirmation bias (you count the hits and forget the misses). Its vague descriptions will ensure all 'believers' will be able to find examples to 'prove' the descriptions about their life events and personalities were right. Depending on the knowledge community you belong to, what is science to some, may be pseudo-science to someone else. Where would you place graphology, phrenology, acupuncture, homeopathy, Feng Shui, or brain gym?
The knowledge frameworks make us think about the object of study in our area of knowledge. The natural scientists' object of study is generally speaking the natural world. In this respect, it seems practical to apply the scientific method. It feels fairly plausible to expect a neutral observation, controlled conditions and the possibility of repeated experiments to test results objectively. But what about the study of human beings? Our human nature is partly biological. So are we suitable objects for (natural) scientific study? Can we explain how our body works in scientific terms? Is illness purely biological? What about mental illness? Where do natural sciences stop and human sciences begin? Human beings are difficult and complex objects of study. The mere acts of observation can change the observed. This is true to a lesser extent when we study inanimate objects of the natural world, but it becomes more acute when we study human beings. Human as well as natural scientists have to find ways around this to keep experiments as objective as possible. What are the differences and similarities between the methodologies of both types of scientists? How does the methodology affect the outcome? A good example is how we can explain emotion through the two different areas of knowledge.
In TOK we look at the difference between natural sciences, human sciences and pseudo-science. We also make links between natural sciences and other areas of knowledge. We evaluate the role of the ways of knowing in the natural sciences as well.
Finally, it is important to remember that despite the obvious strengths of the natural sciences as an area in which we create knowledge, it may not answer all of life's questions. Are we at risk of reducing the world through our love of the natural science? Is there room for a a holistic approach towards knowledge in a world so heavily influenced by the scientific method? Or does science have the ability to give us knowledge about more than just the natural world: our origins, what is right or wrong, or even God?
Western civilisation went through a major cognitive paradigm shift around the 17th Century. Discoveries by Galileo and Newton challenged the prevalent dominant discourse. A new theory of knowledge primarily based on empirical evidence and reason was created. Scientific evidence soon became synonymous with 'ultimate proof' and religious knowledge was challenged by scientific sceptics. This scientific revolution brought about major changes in the way we thought about the world, particularly in the West. Mankind arguably benefited in many ways from this cognitive paradigm shift and with an increased understanding of the world around us, living standards and education generally improved.
Nevertheless, one should not forget that sometimes even the greatest scientists can be wrong. What was considered scientific knowledge at some stage in history may currently be considered inaccurate. And as our scientific knowledge advances, we have to revise previous ideas. Our understanding of atoms and human DNA has evolved considerably over the last century, new elements have recently been added to the periodic table, and the list goes on and on. Last but not least, we should remember that some scientists have even become guilty of scams and hoaxes such as Piltdown hoax. The drive to come up with ground breaking scientific discoveries has led some researchers to tamper with data and evidence. The more recent case of Andrew Wakefield and the MMR vaccine (see lesson at the bottom of this page) also highlights the importance of peer review and the questioning of expert opinion in the field of the natural sciences.
A scientist tries to paint a picture of the natural world through the scientific method. This method is based on observation and hypothesis. After experimentation, scientists may formulate a law and ultimately a theory. A scientific law "predicts the results of certain initial conditions" (TED ed below). In short, it predicts what will happen. A scientific theory, on the other hand, "provides the most logical explanation as to why things happen as they do". In short, it proposes why things happen. Sometimes scientific laws stand the test of time, whereas theories don't. Kepler's laws of planetary motions are still used today, for example, whereas his theory of musical harmony has now been replaced with gravity to explain why the planets move the way they do (see TED ed, theory versus law). It is expected that scientists can repeated experiments that should prove their knowledge claims in a range of controlled conditions. We also actively try to prove each other wrong in the natural sciences through a process which is called 'falsification'. We continually revise and review what counts as scientific knowledge. This process is quite important in the context of theory of knowledge and it is a topic of study you many want to explore further. Scientific laws generally don't change much, unless new data or information becomes available. Scientific theories, however, may co-exist and be discarded at different points in time. Experts may disagree, even when they have access to what seems to be the same facts and data. What counts as the best possible explanation at one stage in history, may sound implausible at another point in time. As mentioned in the TED ed below "multiple scientific theories may compete to provide the best possible explanation of a new scientific discovery". So how do scientists decide which theory is the best? It is usually a theory that explains most data and a theory that can predict what was not observed yet before. For example, Mendeleev had predicted the existence of several undiscovered elements. A theory that is not backed up with much evidence from experiments and data is not usually regarded as very scientific. Theories like the big bang, climate change and evolution seem to have withstood the test of time and are generally accepted today. We can find many historical examples of where the scientific world had actually accepted the wrong theory (eg the geocentric model), but it is hoped that scientific progress can be made by the continual testing and falsification of theories. This is what makes science different from a dogma. Interestingly, the TED talk below does acknowledge that incorrect theories have their value and that they sometimes may give rise to the creation of new theories and scientific discoveries. Not all current scientific theories will be accepted in the future and it is perhaps a good thing that experts often disagree within a disciple. It is up to us as knowers, however, to analyse the acceptability of scientific knowledge claims and theories; to check under what circumstances we should or shouldn't accept expert opinion, keeping in mind the historical evolution of scientific theories.
Within the natural sciences we rely heavily on sense perception and reason. Advances in technology have allowed us to create better tools to observe, but they equally highlight that human beings remain to some extent 'ignorant knowers' due to the human limitations of sense perception. Reason, and particularly inductive reasoning, plays a major role within the scientific method. Inductive reasoning can lead to the creation of knew scientific knowledge. Nevertheless, with inductive reasoning comes the danger of hasty generalisations. Would it be possible or desirable to observe everything all the time to avoid the latter?
Lots of your scientific knowledge is in fact second hand knowledge you gained (at school) through language. Under which circumstances should we accept this second hand knowledge? Good science should actively invite peer-review and re-testing through experimentation. But is this always the case? What do you conclude when an experiment 'does not work'? What if scientists are not open to reviews? What should we believe if we are confronted with two seemingly opposing theories? And on what basis can we decide scientific studies were conducted correctly? Ben Goldacre points out how 'bad science' permeates popular culture and belief. Should we perhaps be wary of scientific knowledge claims (in media) which rely too much on emotive language (often fear)?
The knowledge frameworks make us question how the concepts and language we use influence the conclusions we reach. Scientific language feels more neutral or distant than the language we use in every day conversation. Cancer explained in scientific terminology (neoplasms, carcinoma, lymphoma, etc) is very different from the 'language' of Stromae's artistic interpretation. What is so scientific about science and its concepts? What are its strengths? And its limitations? Is scientific language neutral or reductionist? When we define love in scientific terms, we may ignore nuances which artists can grasp, for example. But do we really want doctors to communicate our medical conditions through emotionally loaded language or even poetry?
Moving from the field of the arts, which we traditionally associate with imagination, I would like to suggest that there may be more room for imagination in the natural sciences than we expect. It is argued that several historical scientific discoveries such as Kekule's notion of the benzene molecule were driven by scientists' imagination. Einstein is often quoted as an advocate of imagination, even though your maths or science teachers will not always encourage you to use more imagination within their lessons. Helen de Cruz and Johan de Smedt argue that (progress in) science is in fact a form of structured imagination, whereby analogies with knowledge in other fields (areas of knowledge) rather than a unstructured imagination (as in Kekule's dream) drive scientific discoveries. In fact, our intuitions about the natural world are often not very scientifc (for example, children across the world intuitively feel that earth is flat). But by transferring distant analogies, we can overcome these intuitions and make scientifc progess through what de Cruz and de Smedt call 'structured imagination'.
And what about faith? Is there room for faith in the natural sciences? Is there a point were we should stop? Do we simply cross the boundaries of what counts as natural sciences if we allow for too much faith, too much imagination, too much intuition?
The history of medicine as a discipline illustrates that there were times when the lines between science and pseudo-science were blurry. I would argue that with the increased quick dissemination of information through current media, pseudo-science has somewhat gained in popularity. We simply don't take the time to check our sources or the methodologies behind the latest discoveries before we share 'news' with someone else. Sometimes it is hard to distinguish between bad science (see Goldacre below) and pseudo-science as both 'sciences' resort to confirmation bias. Astrology is one of the more traditional examples of pseudo-science. It draws on confirmation bias (you count the hits and forget the misses). Its vague descriptions will ensure all 'believers' will be able to find examples to 'prove' the descriptions about their life events and personalities were right. Depending on the knowledge community you belong to, what is science to some, may be pseudo-science to someone else. Where would you place graphology, phrenology, acupuncture, homeopathy, Feng Shui, or brain gym?
The knowledge frameworks make us think about the object of study in our area of knowledge. The natural scientists' object of study is generally speaking the natural world. In this respect, it seems practical to apply the scientific method. It feels fairly plausible to expect a neutral observation, controlled conditions and the possibility of repeated experiments to test results objectively. But what about the study of human beings? Our human nature is partly biological. So are we suitable objects for (natural) scientific study? Can we explain how our body works in scientific terms? Is illness purely biological? What about mental illness? Where do natural sciences stop and human sciences begin? Human beings are difficult and complex objects of study. The mere acts of observation can change the observed. This is true to a lesser extent when we study inanimate objects of the natural world, but it becomes more acute when we study human beings. Human as well as natural scientists have to find ways around this to keep experiments as objective as possible. What are the differences and similarities between the methodologies of both types of scientists? How does the methodology affect the outcome? A good example is how we can explain emotion through the two different areas of knowledge.
In TOK we look at the difference between natural sciences, human sciences and pseudo-science. We also make links between natural sciences and other areas of knowledge. We evaluate the role of the ways of knowing in the natural sciences as well.
Finally, it is important to remember that despite the obvious strengths of the natural sciences as an area in which we create knowledge, it may not answer all of life's questions. Are we at risk of reducing the world through our love of the natural science? Is there room for a a holistic approach towards knowledge in a world so heavily influenced by the scientific method? Or does science have the ability to give us knowledge about more than just the natural world: our origins, what is right or wrong, or even God?
Cancer explained by scientists and by the artist Stromae. What knowledge can each AOK give us?
|
|
Possible essay questions:
- “There are only two ways in which humankind can produce knowledge: through passive observation or through active experiment.” To what extent do you agree with this statement? (May 2015)
- “There is no reason why we cannot link facts and theories across disciplines and create a common groundwork of explanation.” To what extent do you agree with this statement? (May 2015)
- With reference to two areas of knowledge discuss the way in which shared knowledge can shape personal knowledge. (May 2015)
- “The main reason knowledge is produced is to solve problems.” To what extent do you agree with this statement? (November 2015)
- Assess the advantages and disadvantages of using models to produce knowledge of the world. (November 2015)
- “Without the group to verify it, knowledge is not possible.” Discuss. (November 2015)
- . “In some areas of knowledge we try to reduce a complex whole to simple components, but in others we try to integrate simple components into a complex whole.” Discuss this distinction with reference to two areas of knowledge. (November 2015)
- Is explanation a prerequisite for prediction? Explore this question in relation to two areas of knowledge. (November 2015)
- "Without application in the world, the value of knowledge is greatly diminished." Consider this claim with respect to two areas of knowledge. (May 2016)
- "In knowledge there is always a trade-off between accuracy and simplicity." Evaluate this statement in relation to two areas of knowledge. (May 2016)
- “Error is as valuable as accuracy in the production of knowledge.” To what extent is this the case in two areas of knowledge? (November 2016).
- Is the availability of more data always helpful in the production of knowledge? Explore this question with reference to two areas of knowledge. (November 2016)
- “The acquisition of knowledge is more a matter of recognition than of judgement.” Evaluate this claim with reference to two areas of knowledge.
Links between the natural sciences and other AOK's:
Mike Hobbiss's lesson on psychology as a natural science
This lesson looks at psychology as a natural science. Would you classify psychology as a natural or human science? Why?
The lesson also explores the area of knowledge of natural sciences in general and offers some thoughts on its historical development, ethical implications, methodology and ways of knowing.
Note: The PowerPoint below is heavy in data, so it had to be split into two parts to be uploaded to this website.
The lesson also explores the area of knowledge of natural sciences in general and offers some thoughts on its historical development, ethical implications, methodology and ways of knowing.
Note: The PowerPoint below is heavy in data, so it had to be split into two parts to be uploaded to this website.
natural_science_tok_presentation_part_a.pptx | |
File Size: | 4904 kb |
File Type: | pptx |
natural_science_tok_presentation_part_b.pptx | |
File Size: | 7291 kb |
File Type: | pptx |
What is so scientific about science? Goldacre on bad science
This excellent Ted talk by Ben Goldacre explores how badly conducted scientific studies can mislead even the best of doctors. It touches upon the importance of good statistical analysis and the necessity to check one's sources carefully before accepting knowledge claims. Goldacre highlights the importance of a good scientific methodology. The TED ed talk 'Why be skeptical' touches upon similar ideas.
|
TED talks on the importance of conducting scientific studies correctly if we want to reach accurate conclusions.Which knowledge questions can you think of after having watched both talks? |
Science, methodology and the development of knowledge in disciplines.
The knowledge frameworks make us think about methodologies for each area of knowledge and how these methodologies shape the conclusions we reach in our search for knowledge. When we look at methodologies within the natural sciences, we will undoubtedly come across the scientific method. The document below illustrates what the scientific method is all about. Do you think natural sciences could still be called natural sciences if we would discard the scientific method? How do scientists go about in their search for knowledge? How do the ways of knowing drive scientific discoveries? Which ways of knowing are the instigators of new ideas and which lead us to form scientific laws and theories? Finally, how do scientists verify each other's findings? How do individuals contribute to scientific knowledge as a whole and how does shared scientific knowledge drive individual breakthroughs?
Notions such as paradigm shifts, falsification and peer review (with its call for simplicity) are linked to the idea of methodology in the field of science. The articles and short clips below explore these notions briefly.
Notions such as paradigm shifts, falsification and peer review (with its call for simplicity) are linked to the idea of methodology in the field of science. The articles and short clips below explore these notions briefly.
The scientific method.
In the news:
Detection of gravitational waves |
Neuron stars colliding |
Accuracy versus precision.
What is the difference?
Is there always a trade-off between both concepts when we create our 'maps of knowledge?'
Historical development of knowledge in the natural sciences:
|
|
Scope:
What is the object of study of the natural sciences?
What knowledge does science offer us?
Are there limits to its scope?
Ted talk Sam Harris: how science can answer moral questions
Science, ethics and religion
With the rapid advancement of sciences over the last centuries, people started to explore the boundaries of its scope. Some feel that because of science's successes, virtually everything can and should be explained through the natural sciences. In that respect, science can become a religion, the basic explanation of our human condition and an answer to our moral questions. But are the successes in the field of the natural sciences enough of a basis to discard knowledge constructed within other areas of knowledge?
Others question the impact of natural sciences exactly from the perspective of other areas of knowledge such as ethics. The possession of scientific knowledge undoubtedly entails ethical responsibility. How far can and should we go in our search for scientific knowledge? What kinds of experiments should we not conduct and why? On what basis can we decide that something is called progress? On what basis can we decide it is OK to redesign nature?
Finally, some thinkers also question the human limitations in the search for scientific knowledge. We are bound to our human frame in our understanding of the world. Can we trust our human ways of knowing? What can we do to enhance the power of these human tools?
Others question the impact of natural sciences exactly from the perspective of other areas of knowledge such as ethics. The possession of scientific knowledge undoubtedly entails ethical responsibility. How far can and should we go in our search for scientific knowledge? What kinds of experiments should we not conduct and why? On what basis can we decide that something is called progress? On what basis can we decide it is OK to redesign nature?
Finally, some thinkers also question the human limitations in the search for scientific knowledge. We are bound to our human frame in our understanding of the world. Can we trust our human ways of knowing? What can we do to enhance the power of these human tools?
TED TALK Richard Dawkins: How does our 'human frame limit our understanding of the universe?
BIO NOTED of RICHARD DAWKINS (www.ted.com)
'As an evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins has broadened our understanding of the genetic origin of our species; as a popular author, he has helped lay readers understand complex scientific concepts. He's best-known for the ideas laid out in his landmark book The Selfish Gene and fleshed out in The Extended Phenotype: the rather radical notion that Darwinian selection happens not at the level of the individual, but at the level of our DNA. The implication: We evolved for only one purpose — to serve our genes. Of perhaps equal importance is Dawkins' concept of the meme, which he defines as a self-replicating unit of culture -- an idea, a chain letter, a catchy tune, an urban legend -- which is passed person-to-person, its longevity based on its ability to lodge in the brain and inspire transmission to others. Introduced in The Selfish Gene in 1976, the concept of memes has itself proven highly contagious, inspiring countless accounts and explanations of idea propagation in the information age. In recent years, Dawkins has become outspoken in his atheism, coining the word "bright" (as an alternate to atheist), and encouraging fellow non-believers to stand up and be identified. His controversial, confrontational 2002 TED talk was a seminal moment for the New Atheism, as was the publication of his 2006 book, The God Delusion, a bestselling critique of religion that championed atheism and promoted scientific principles over creationism and intelligent design.'
'As an evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins has broadened our understanding of the genetic origin of our species; as a popular author, he has helped lay readers understand complex scientific concepts. He's best-known for the ideas laid out in his landmark book The Selfish Gene and fleshed out in The Extended Phenotype: the rather radical notion that Darwinian selection happens not at the level of the individual, but at the level of our DNA. The implication: We evolved for only one purpose — to serve our genes. Of perhaps equal importance is Dawkins' concept of the meme, which he defines as a self-replicating unit of culture -- an idea, a chain letter, a catchy tune, an urban legend -- which is passed person-to-person, its longevity based on its ability to lodge in the brain and inspire transmission to others. Introduced in The Selfish Gene in 1976, the concept of memes has itself proven highly contagious, inspiring countless accounts and explanations of idea propagation in the information age. In recent years, Dawkins has become outspoken in his atheism, coining the word "bright" (as an alternate to atheist), and encouraging fellow non-believers to stand up and be identified. His controversial, confrontational 2002 TED talk was a seminal moment for the New Atheism, as was the publication of his 2006 book, The God Delusion, a bestselling critique of religion that championed atheism and promoted scientific principles over creationism and intelligent design.'
Ethical implications of scientific discoveries:
|
|