Theory of Knowledge - Course Companion for Students Marija Uzunova Dang Arvin Singh Uzunov Dang
tell Weldon’s story here? A WeldonianWhymight have been less simple, butgeneticsapplicable and more revealing about themorebetween genes and the environment.interactiondirection of enquiry has gatheredThisonly relatively recently.momentumabout scientific disagreement areStoriesbecause they reveal that the losingimportantwas not necessarily or obviously wrong,sideif we have learned anything it is toandour own fallibility, to caution againstbewareand to be curious aboutoversimplificationarguments lost to history. The stories thatthetells about itself can be misleading,sciencepresenting a story in which developmentsbytogether neatly to produce fundamentalcomerecognized today. This is the Whiggishtruthsdiscussed in II.2.viewconcepts learned early in science educationTheif oversimplified, support stubborn andcan,misconceptions if students do notdangeroustheir education to the level wherecontinueis added back to simplifications.complexityscientists and teachers have statedReputablethe currently taught genetics curriculumthattoo simplistic. Consider the following quoteisJenny Lewis, of the Genetics Pedagogiesbythat explored the effects of changing theProjecthelping students to develop their“Whenof basic genetic concepts,understandingcan be useful to reduce complexity byita traditional, linear view ofadoptingexpression (one gene, one protein,genecharacteristic) but there is a risk thatone9 discusses the merits and demerits ofChapterhow the course of historycounterfactuals—askinggenetics in which every characteristicofdetermined by a single gene. Theisunexpectedly confirmed by thereality,Genome Project, is that thereHumanvery few single gene characteristicsaredisorders in humans … . Rather, theorbetween the genome (therelationshipDNA sequence), gene expression,entirethe environment was shown toandconsiderably more complex thanbeThe result is a move awayanticipated.a focus on single genes (genetics,fromnarrowly) and towards aunderstoodof the whole genome and itsconsiderationwith the environment, internalinteractionsexternal (genomics).” (Lewis 2011)andRadick has similarly argued thatGregorystudents should be taught a geneticsbiologyIf we teach them about Mendel, we“do so not to fill them with slack-shouldwonder at his foundationaljawedbut to help them toachievement,how even the most imaginativeappreciaterigorous science ... bears the stamp ofandhistorical circumstances of its making.thelearn that lesson about past science isTobring a welcome level of self-awarenesstocritical self-reflection to the present.”andand Lewis work on the GeneticsRadickProject, an experimental syllabusPedagogiesimagines what a Weldonian approachthatgenetics might have looked like and whattoit makes for students to bedifferenceto it.exposedhave been aected if key events had occurredmightCompare this with the value of asking thedierently.question in science. Is it more or less dicult tosamealternative histories or alternative sciences?imagineII. PerspectivesII. Perspectivescurriculum fit for the 21st century.genetics curriculum.(Radick 2016)this will result in a deterministic viewMaking connections“What if … ?” in history and in the natural sciencesWhat can we learn from such an exercise?187
II. Perspectivestechnical debates involving science, citizensInfind themselves in a position of havingoftentrust what they are being told by experts.tocounts as an “expert” and how far theirWhoextends is something that is sociallyexpertiserequiring us to make judgmentsnegotiated,science touches the public domainWhenattracts public attention, and its effectsitbe far-reaching and urgent. Whenevercangets enrolled in public debates onsciencecontroversial issues, its authority,sociallythe authority of those who speak on itsandis tested. Air pollution, climate changebehalf,vaccine hesitancy are among manyandpolicy-making, scientists and nonscientistsInhave to comprehend the evolvingissues relating to policy, and findscientificlanguage to communicate effectively intheecosystem complicated by money, politicsancompetition. The context of democraticandon matters involving sciencedecision-makingquestions about power and legitimacy,raiseswell as values and democracy. Who is ableasspeak from a place of authority on matterstothe intersection of science and policy? Howatthe demands of participatory democracycanbalanced with the need for scientificbeautonomy?2 explores “post-truth” and the causes andChapterof an apparently diminished publicconsequencescase study in II.3 described controversyThethe scientific community over the factamongHIV is the cause of AIDS. However, this wasthatsimply a scientific controversy occurring innotacademic vacuum; it spread to the social andanrealms. Explanations of the cause andpoliticalof AIDS were inevitably influenced by,spreadinfluenced in turn, contemporary attitudesandbeliefs about homosexuality, addiction andandfreedom.sexualthe other side of the debate about whatOnAIDS was the controversy about how tocausesit. In the early days, the treatment of AIDStreata scientific, pharmacological and medicalwasparticipation in which required a highdebate,of technical expertise. At the same time,levelwere also involved and influential:non-expertswho stood to profit from treatment; thosethosewith reporting on the development oftaskedand, of course, those for whom ittreatments;a question of life and death. Epstein (1996)wasthe different actors in this controversydescribesthe United States, who varied in theirinand interests.motivationswere] the researchers hoping to hit[Therebreakthroughs in … AIDS research; theonand biotechnology companies whosepharmaceuticalvalues might uctuate by millions of dollars,stockon the latest reports about the successesdependingfailures of their products; the medical professionalsormust translate inconclusive and contradictorywhondings into workable, day-to-day clinicalresearchthe regulatory agencies and advisoryjudgments;that serve as ‘gatekeepers’, ruling on thebodiesand ecacy of new therapies; the patientssafetyconsume the drugs and populate the clinicalwhothe reporters and journalists who interprettrials;research ndings to various segments ofscienticpublic; and, of course, the activists who police thetheprocess and oer their own interpretations ofwholestudy of science and citizenship inEpstein’sAIDS epidemic shows, among other things,thenon-scientists can acquire high levels ofhowknowledge even when they arebiomedicalby the current set-up of scienceunderservedpolitics. AIDS activists were able not only toandand scrutinize biomedical claims, butunderstandto participate in shaping the methodologiesalso7II.6 Science for citizenshipabout their credibility.contemporary examples.Making connectionsthe methods and the outcomes.Science, politics and public trust(Epstein 1996)trust in scientic expertise.188
- Page 143 and 144: IV. Ethicsintellectual property has
- Page 145 and 146: 6andKnowledgereligionworld’s reli
- Page 147 and 148: I. Scopejudicial, economic, and pol
- Page 149 and 150: I. Scopein his view, involves this
- Page 151 and 152: I. Scopekinds of questions altogeth
- Page 153 and 154: II. Perspectivespractices of the cu
- Page 155 and 156: religious knowledge lose something,
- Page 157 and 158: what extent can we comprehend the w
- Page 159 and 160: II. Perspectivesone, it allows stra
- Page 161 and 162: the context of perspectives, it is
- Page 163 and 164: view has been criticized for being
- Page 165 and 166: David Thoreau was a naturalist, wri
- Page 167 and 168: III. Methods and toolsdisasters are
- Page 169 and 170: IV. Ethicswe have an ethical respon
- Page 171 and 172: IV. EthicsSinger described conseque
- Page 173 and 174: IV. Ethics1962, generals seized pow
- Page 175 and 176: recent human activity called scienc
- Page 177 and 178: II. Perspectivessection explores th
- Page 179 and 180: II. Perspectivessaid to be in crisi
- Page 181 and 182: II. PerspectivesNewton’s theory?
- Page 183 and 184: II. Perspectives19th century reveal
- Page 185 and 186: II. PerspectivesWhat are some scien
- Page 187 and 188: II. Perspectivesof Duesberg’s pap
- Page 189 and 190: II. Perspectivesis a highly simplif
- Page 191 and 192: II. Perspectivesterms: Symphony ofS
- Page 193: II. Perspectivesorigin story of gen
- Page 197 and 198: II. Perspectivesfar this section ha
- Page 199 and 200: II. Perspectivesthe kind of problem
- Page 201 and 202: III. Methods and toolsthe scientifi
- Page 203 and 204: III. Methods and toolsunrecognized
- Page 205 and 206: III. Methods and toolshas a number
- Page 207 and 208: III. Methods and toolsthe link to t
- Page 209 and 210: IV. Ethicswas the wartime head of t
- Page 211 and 212: IV. Ethicsan essential, imperfect a
- Page 213 and 214: 8Human scienceschapter is about the
- Page 215 and 216: I. Scopeof an idea or theory coming
- Page 217 and 218: I. Scopecentral cause of the profes
- Page 219 and 220: I. Scopeidea of describing society
- Page 221 and 222: who had been placed at the ‘lower
- Page 223 and 224: explore perspectives on the existen
- Page 225 and 226: II. Perspectivesallegations of scie
- Page 227 and 228: we look at the simplifications that
- Page 229 and 230: II. PerspectivesIII. Methods and to
- Page 231 and 232: III. Methods and toolslack of diver
- Page 233 and 234: III. Methods and toolssensitivity
- Page 235 and 236: III. Methods and toolsMargaret Mead
- Page 237 and 238: III. Methods and toolstheir presenc
- Page 239 and 240: III. Methods and toolstold Mahbub,
- Page 241 and 242: III. Methods and toolsY. Thinley, a
- Page 243 and 244: III. Methods and toolsis the scope
tell Weldon’s story here? A Weldonian
Why
might have been less simple, but
genetics
applicable and more revealing about the
more
between genes and the environment.
interaction
direction of enquiry has gathered
This
only relatively recently.
momentum
about scientific disagreement are
Stories
because they reveal that the losing
important
was not necessarily or obviously wrong,
side
if we have learned anything it is to
and
our own fallibility, to caution against
beware
and to be curious about
oversimplification
arguments lost to history. The stories that
the
tells about itself can be misleading,
science
presenting a story in which developments
by
together neatly to produce fundamental
come
recognized today. This is the Whiggish
truths
discussed in II.2.
view
concepts learned early in science education
The
if oversimplified, support stubborn and
can,
misconceptions if students do not
dangerous
their education to the level where
continue
is added back to simplifications.
complexity
scientists and teachers have stated
Reputable
the currently taught genetics curriculum
that
too simplistic. Consider the following quote
is
Jenny Lewis, of the Genetics Pedagogies
by
that explored the effects of changing the
Project
helping students to develop their
“When
of basic genetic concepts,
understanding
can be useful to reduce complexity by
it
a traditional, linear view of
adopting
expression (one gene, one protein,
gene
characteristic) but there is a risk that
one
9 discusses the merits and demerits of
Chapter
how the course of history
counterfactuals—asking
genetics in which every characteristic
of
determined by a single gene. The
is
unexpectedly confirmed by the
reality,
Genome Project, is that there
Human
very few single gene characteristics
are
disorders in humans … . Rather, the
or
between the genome (the
relationship
DNA sequence), gene expression,
entire
the environment was shown to
and
considerably more complex than
be
The result is a move away
anticipated.
a focus on single genes (genetics,
from
narrowly) and towards a
understood
of the whole genome and its
consideration
with the environment, internal
interactions
external (genomics).” (Lewis 2011)
and
Radick has similarly argued that
Gregory
students should be taught a genetics
biology
If we teach them about Mendel, we
“
do so not to fill them with slack-
should
wonder at his foundational
jawed
but to help them to
achievement,
how even the most imaginative
appreciate
rigorous science ... bears the stamp of
and
historical circumstances of its making.
the
learn that lesson about past science is
To
bring a welcome level of self-awareness
to
critical self-reflection to the present.”
and
and Lewis work on the Genetics
Radick
Project, an experimental syllabus
Pedagogies
imagines what a Weldonian approach
that
genetics might have looked like and what
to
it makes for students to be
difference
to it.
exposed
have been aected if key events had occurred
might
Compare this with the value of asking the
dierently.
question in science. Is it more or less dicult to
same
alternative histories or alternative sciences?
imagine
II. Perspectives
II. Perspectives
curriculum fit for the 21st century.
genetics curriculum.
(Radick 2016)
this will result in a deterministic view
Making connections
“What if … ?” in history and in the natural sciences
What can we learn from such an exercise?
187