1) Required readings
* Neil
deGrasse
Tyson (2016, August 7), “Reflections on
Rationalia
,” Retrieved from
https
://
www
.
facebook
.com/notes/
neil
-
degrasse
-
tyson
/reflections-on-
rationalia
/10154399608556613
* Jeffrey
Guhin
(2016, July 5), “A Nation Ruled by Science Is a Terrible Idea,” Retrieved from:
http
://
www
.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2016/07/
neil
_
degrasse
_
tyson
_wants_a_nation_ruled_by_evidence_but_evidence_explains.
html
* Stephen Jay Gould (1997), "
Nonoverlapping
Magisteria
," Natural History 106: 16-22 (reproduced here:
http
://
www
.
stephenjaygould
.
org
/library/
gould
_
noma
.
html
)
2) Reflection essay (minimum of 400 words)
Neil
deGrasse
Tyson, the famous
astrophysicist
and science communicator (perhaps best known for the 2014 science documentary '
Cosmos: A
Spacetime
Odyssey' he presented), has recently suggested on Twitter that "Earth needs a virtual country: #
Rationalia
, with a one-line Constitution: All policy shall be based on the weight of evidences." The Tyson article is a further elaboration on the idea of
Rationalia
, and the
Guhin
piece is a sociologist's response. This debate brings up some questions relevant to our course: What role should science play in our societies? How do we define science or religion? Does each have their own "l
egitimate
magisterium
" that does not (or should not) overlap? If we are worried about preventing religious ideas and beliefs from intervening in scientific activities and public policies, how should we draw boundaries between science and religion?
Imagine yourself writing a short opinion piece
for a newspaper
about
Neil
deGrasse
Tyson's
'Rationalia'
proposal. In your piece, please (1) begin by briefly summarizing what the
'Rationalia'
proposal is about, (2) move to a discussion of 2-3 aspects of the
'Rationalia'
proposal that you find valuable, interesting, unjustified, or problematic, and (3) end with a brief note on the public debate on science and religion (by using insights from
Stephen Jay Gould's article on
'nonoverlapping
magisteria'
).
...
3. Tyson, the famous
astrophysicist
and science communicator (perhaps best known for the 2014
science documentary '
Cosmos: A
Spacetime
Odyssey' he presented), has recently suggested on Twitter that
"Earth needs a virtual country: #
Rationalia
, with a one-line Constitution: All policy shall be based on the
weight of evidences." The Tyson article is a further elaboration
on the idea of
Rationalia
, and the
Guhin
piece is a sociologist's response. This debate brings up some
questions relevant to our course: What role should science play
in our societies? How do we define science or religion? Does
each have their own "l
egitimate
magisterium
" that does not (or should not) overlap? If we are worried about
preventing religious ideas and beliefs from
intervening in scientific activities and public policies, how
should we draw boundaries between science and religion?
Imagine yourself writing a short opinion piece
for a newspaper
about
Neil
4. deGrasse
Tyson's
'Rationalia'
proposal. In your piece, please (1) begin by briefly
summarizing what the
'Rationalia'
proposal is about, (2) move to a discussion of 2-3 aspects of
the
'Rationalia'
proposal that you find valuable, interesting, unjustified, or
problematic, and (3) end with a brief note on the public debate
on science and religion (by using insights from
Stephen Jay Gould's article on
'nonoverlapping
magisteria'
).
