When deciding what
courses to take for this past semester, my choice to take “PHIL 307i: Philosophy
of Science, Nature, and Technology” was a no-brainer. For one thing, it would satisfy both a core
curriculum requirement for humanities and a requirement for my environmental
studies minor. But, beyond that, it was
a course that seemed would be uniquely rewarding for my educational
experience. Part of the reason I decided
to go into the field of science, majoring in biological sciences and
specializing in ecology, was to help out with the goal of better understanding
the world around us. To me, science and
philosophy are both essential pillars of this task. The only difference is that one uses
empirical evidence to make predictions about the nature of things in the world,
while the other works where empirical evidence cannot be used to fully solve a
problem. For this reason, though I’m a
science major, my goal has been to get an effective background in philosophy as
well. This course in particular not only
offered an opportunity to learn about some particular areas of philosophy, but
also focused its attention on philosophy related to the disciplines that will
directly be in my line of work, science and the study of nature. My thought was that this course would help
bridge the gap for me between science and philosophy by providing a
philosophical perspective on science, and I’m happy to say that it did this for
the most part, although not always in the ways I would have expected.
The structure of the
course, although different from any I had taken before, was particularly
helpful in facilitating my learning process.
This structure primarily involved lectures, class discussions, and
regular blog entries exploring the themes discussed in class. The blog entries I found more enjoyable that
the formal papers I’m used to writing for most classes like this, and these
allowed me to regularly reflect on the topics we had been learning about,
without the work being too rigorous. There
was also a fair amount of reading that was assigned, which was the most
challenging part of the course for me, as it was difficult to find time to both
keep up with the reading and work on the next blog entry. However, I was generally still able to pick
out the most important parts of the readings for use in my blog entries, so
this was not a huge issue.
The content of the
course was also not quite what I expected.
A philosophy of science class, I assumed, would focus on scientific
method and theory, ethics of scientific practices, and other things specifically
related to science. Although these
things were part of the content presented, the course seemed instead to use
science and technology as devices to aid in a larger exploration of the nature
of reality and life. I particularly
enjoyed the exploration of the nature of change and creation in the universe
that was discussed throughout the course.
The debate over the degree to which the universe can experience real
change was an issue I had not really thought of directly before. Reading about Parmenides’ position that “being
is one” and Spinoza’s view on God or Nature, both of which outline a deterministic
universe where the only things that can exist are what already exists in some
form within the singular entity of the universe (Mcdermott 62; Nadler), helped
build my own view on the issue. I also
greatly enjoyed our study of two excellent works of fiction, the novel Frankenstein and the film Ex Machina. These both explored the repercussions of
humans creating life, as well as the question of what it even means for
something to be “alive” (Ex Machina;
Shelley). The only topic I found a bit
less engaging was our study of magic and occult philosophy. The philosophers discussed here, including
Giordano Bruno, Alistair Crowley, and Randal Auxier, offered an insightful
perspective on reality and life, however this topic deviated a little too much
from the scientific side of things for me, and seemed to take up much of the
middle portion of the semester. Despite
this and the other reasons why the content of the course wasn’t quite what I
expected, the course still proved to be very insightful to me. Rather than looking specifically at the
nature of science, it was enlightening in that it helped build a framework for
a philosophical perspective on the things I will actually be studying in my
career: life and the world around us.
This, as I said, is just as important as the scientific
perspective.
Overall, PHIL 307i was
a very good course and a positive experience.
Though I would have liked to spend more time studying the philosophical
works discussed in class in more depth, and this certainly would have helped my
grade, I also think I performed well in the course. Most importantly though, the course helped
form for me what I was initially hoping for, a bridge between the worlds of
science and philosophy, which will give me an important perspective going
forward as I begin my career as a biologist.
Works Cited
Ex Machina. Dir. Alex Garland. Universal Studios, 2015. DVD.
McDermott, John J. A Cultural Introduction to Philosophy.
New York: Knopf, 1985. Print.
Merriam-Webster.
Merriam-Webster. Web. 6 Nov. 2015.
Nadler, Steven. "Baruch Spinoza." The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. N.p., 2013. Web. Nov.-Dec. 2015.
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. London: Lackington, Hughes,
Harding, Mavor, and Jones, 1818. The Project Gutenberg. Web. 2015.
No comments:
Post a Comment