]]
Publications
Griffith University and the Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories, 1997
Kathleen Gordon
Queensland Department of Education
Australia
This workshop provides an introduction to the nature of 'new science' and explores its implications for teaching. 'New science', sometimes called postmodern science, is the convergence of thermodynamics, quantum physics and chaos theory. The workshop attempts to link 'new science' concepts with environment and development education by critically examining the modern scientific worldview and its origins. Participants are encouraged to critique this worldview and explore an ecological world view held by an increasing number of theoretical scientists, particularly physicists.
Through the activities in this workshop, participants will develop:
Facilitator outlines the organisation of the workshop
A. Truths and lies about science.
A warm-up activity where participants explore their own and each others' perceptions of science.
B. Classifying statements about science.
A focussing activity looking at statements about science (small group work, reporting back to whole group).
A. Mini-lecture to the whole group about the modern scientific worldview.
B. Small groups design consequence wheels.
C. Mini lecture to whole group about 'new science' and a new worldview.
D. Reclassifying statements about science into industrial and ecological classifications (use same small groups as in 1.B).
A. Designing concept maps using action research model.
In small groups, participants choose a science topic and consider how they can incorporate 'new science' ideas or choose a social or environmental issue and consider how to plan a unit of work based on an action research model.
B. A teaching unit framework.
Participants evaluate action research as a framework for teaching 'new science'.
C. Putting a 'new science' into practice.
Participants translate what they have learnt into practical plans for the future.
Overhead Transparency Masters
OHT 1: Overview of Workshop
OHT 2: Quotation by Barry Jones
OHT 3: The Modern Scientific Paradigm
OHT 4: The New Scientific Paradigm
OHT 5: Sample Concept Map
Resources
Resource 1: Statements About Science and Science Education
Resource 2: Sample Consequence Wheel
Resource 3: Origin of Statements on Resource 1
Resource 4: Action Research Model
Resource 5: Reflection on the Implications of 'New Science' and My Teaching Practice
Reading
Reading 1: A New Alliance
Best, S. (1990) Chaos and Entropy, Science as Culture, Vol 2, Part 2, No. 11.
Gang, P. (1990) The Global-ecocentric Paradigm in Education, Holistic Education, 3(1), 11-16.
Gleick, J. (1987) Chaos - Making a 'New Science', Cardinal, London.
Lovelock, J. (1991) Gaia - The Practical Science of Planetary Medicine, Allen and Unwin, Sydney.
Pack, R. (1991) Physics: How Do You Relate the Generation of Electricity to the Deforestation of the Amazon?, Educational Technology, June.
Prigogine, I. and Stengers, I. (1984) Order Out of Chaos, Heinemann, London.
Rifkin, J. (1989) Entropy - Into the Greenhouse World, Bantam Books, New York.
Buligan, C. K. (1992) Science/Holistic Curriculum?, Orbit, 23(2).
Introduce the theme of the workshop, 'New Science - A New Worldview' and outline the sequence of the workshop. These are set out on OHT 1.
1. Science and You
2. Science and Your Worldview
3. 'New Science' in Practice
A. Warm-up Activity - 'Two Truths and a Lie (about science)'
B. Focussing Activity
(The categories chosen are not important in the final analysis - the value of the activity is in the discussion)
A. Mini-lecture - Modern Science and an Industrial Worldview
These notes and OHTs are sufficient for this mini-lecture. However, facilitators may wish to consult Reading 1 and the other recommended readings.
B. Designing Consequence Wheels
C. Mini-lecture - 'New Science' and an Ecological Worldview
These notes and OHTs are sufficient for this mini-lecture. However, facilitators may wish to consult Reading 1 and the other recommended readings.
D. Reclassifying Statements Used in Activity 1B
A. Using Concept Maps and Action Research
B. A Teaching Unit Framework
C. Putting it into Practice - a Reflection and Planning Session
Source: Barry Jones, 21C Scanning the Future, Summer, 1991/92.*
The history of science has been very badly taught at school (if at all). It is seen as a steady, single-minded pursuit of truth - as a linear projection based on gradual accumulation of knowledge. But science does not grow by accumulation. Much great science is demolitionist, destroying the accumulated wisdom of the past ... Value and belief systems have been deeply involved in paradigm shifts ... The dogma of technological progressivism with its emphasis on 'more', 'bigger', 'faster' has some repellent sides, has alienated the young and is not a feasible model for the Third World.
* 21C Scanning the Future is a magazine of culture, technology and science, published four times per year.
The modern scientific epistemology is characterised by:
The development of 'new science' has spawned an ecological worldview which is characterised by:
Source: J. Rifkin (1989) Entropy - Into the Greenhouse World, Bantam Books, New York.
The emerging energy crisis and global warming trend represent the greatest challenge to the survival of our species in recorded history. To effectively meet that challenge, the human race will need to develop a new world view that takes into account the underlying tenets of the laws of thermodynamics and especially the Entropy Law.
A
There is uncertainty. There always is about science. That's the whole point. No scientist of any standing will claim to be privy to absolute truth. The very concept is unscientific.
B
It is also part of the human condition to use knowledge to gain control. Knowledge of physics has led to developments in technology, some of which have had a profound impact on our social structures.
C
The real and legitimate goal of the sciences is the endowment of human life with new invention and riches.
D
Science, at best, is on the periphery in our corporate culture, and is not yet part of our public or political culture.
E
In community debate, science can help explain the implications of proposed courses of action and help the nation get onto the path of sustainable development.
F
I am not saying that we do not need organised science; only that we need to recognise its frailty as a human condition, that it is slow, and its record in handling immediate and environmental problems is far from good. It tends to do only those things that scientists find easy to do and want to do anyway.
G
Science is the literature of truth.
H
Thinkers of the 18th and 19th centuries thought that science could save us, but not many people think that way now.
I
It [science] is also indirectly responsible, through the application of its findings, for generating much of the material wealth and for providing most of the employment which preserves our way of life.
J
Most citizens of the developed world are deluded by the belief that pouring money on science is the way to get results.
K.
Science knows only one commandment: contribute to science.
L.
Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men.
Source: Based upon ideas in Editorial, Science as Culture, 2(1), No 13 , 1991.*
By treating nature as a profit machine of ever-increasing efficiency, agriculture has encountered severe ecological limits in sustaining that project.
* Science as Culture is available from Process Press, 26 Freegrove Road, London N7 9RQ, Unite Kingdom
A. Robyn Williams, The Science of Politics, 21C, Autumn 1991.
B. Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Board, 1990.
C. Francis Bacon, circa 1620.
D. Barry Jones, New Scientist, 23 May 1992.
E. Prof Adrienne Clarke, Chairperson of C SIRO, 1992.
F. James Lovelock (1992) Gaia: The Practical Science of Planetary Medicine.
G. Jos h Billings.
H. Max Charlesworth, 21C, Summer 1991/92.
I. Board of Senior Secondary School Studies, Queensland, Junior Syllabus in Science.
J. James Lovelock (1992) Gaia: The Practical Science of Planetary Medicine.
K. Bertolt Brecht (194 3) Galileo.
L. Martin Luther King Jr. (1963) Strength to Love.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reflections on the implications of 'new science' for my personal life (e.g. use of resources)
A brief look at the emergence of 'new' science and its contribution to an ecological worldview
In recent years the emergence of 'new science' has become apparent with the publication of numerous articles and books and the appearance of many conferences and programmes on the topic. Such is the interest in the nature of 'new science' that these new developments have been reported not just for scientists but popularised thus reaching a wider audience. Coined the 'new science' by Prigogine and Stengers in their revolutionary book, Order Out of Chaos, this trend is often referred to as postmodern science. Advocates of this view of science see modernity as '...an historical era of wanton destruction', (Best, 1991, p. 189) and view postmodernism as '...an historical period yet to be created - where human beings exist in harmonious relations with nature, each other and their own selves' (Best, 1991, p. 189). The extent to which this 'new science' can contribute to this notion of caring for the earth, each other and ourselves - the basis of environmental education - is problematic. However, the question warrants exploration, not in the least because 'new science' may well prove to be an influential ally, one which the environmental education movement may do well to enlist in order to gain broader acceptance and support to achieve its goals.
The nature of the 'new science' or postmodern science is such that it rejects modernism, seeing its expression in science as inherently repressive. Breaking from the mechanistic, objectivistic and deterministic worldview of modern science, 'new science' has been defined as an ecological science, viewing nature, people and their relationships in an holistic manner (Prigogine and Stengers, 1984). This rejection of modernism is the basis of both postmodern science and postmodern social theory, with social theorists describing the modern rationalisation process as '... a juggernaut of domination' (Best, 1991, p. 188). It is this bringing together of scientific and social theory - physics and philosophy, chemistry and history - that is one of the most exciting aspects of postmodernism. The French title of Prigogine and Stengers' Order Out of Chaos - La Nouvelle Alliance - demonstrates the importance that this Nobel award winning physicist and his co-author, a chemist and philosopher, place on this partnership.
This move towards holism, now being attempted in western traditions, is being assisted by the new discourse between postmodern science and social theory. Proponents of holistic education view this movement '...from the mechanistic industrial age to a global, ecological age... as part of a larger transformation in western civilisation' (Gang, 1990, p. 11). This transformation is vital, for, as Griffin (in Best, 1991, p. 188) says, ' The continuation of modernity threatens the very survival of life on our planet.' The transformation of science in this context is particularly vital as modern science has perhaps been most guilty of reductionism - the very antithesis of holism (Toffler in Prigogine and Stengers, 1984).
Although shaped by many scientific and social influences, postmodern science has emerged largely as the result of three major developments in the field of physics. These developments in thermodynamics, quantum mechanics and chaos theory have debunked modern scientific epistemology by systematically discrediting the basis upon which that worldview was built. Not only are Descartes and Newton unfashionable, but their theories which have shaped and dominated our industrial worldview have been proven to be false, by the very science that embraced their ideas - physics. A brief historical overview of these developments demonstrate that these changes have been a long time in coming.
In 1811 Fourier advanced what later became k nown as the first law of thermodynamics, which stated that energy cannot be created or destroyed but moves from available to unavailable states. His research, which won him acclaim at the time, rejected two long-held Newtonian concepts. His thesis maintained that systems were dynamic not passive, and that time was irreversible rather than reversible (Prigogine and Stengers, 1984). These developments were augmented 41 years later by Thompson whose research supported Fourier's findings and went on to suggest that energy was increasingly being lost from systems. This notion of energy loss became known as the second law of thermodynamics, although it is also referred to the law of entropy (Best, 1991). Both laws of thermodynamics can be stated in one sentence. 'The total energy content of the universe is constant and the total entropy is continually increasing' (Asimov in Rifkin, 1989, p. 47). These concepts have gained wide acceptance in the scientific community. Of entropy, Lovelock (1991, p. 31) has said, ' ...These laws [thermodynamics] rule the whole of our universe, and Gaia has had to evolve within their restrictive boundaries.' However the last word on entropy, for now at least, belongs to the genius of Albert Einstein, who said:
...A theory is more impressive the greater is the simplicity of its premises, the more different are the kinds of things it relates and the more extended its range of applicability... It [thermodynamics] is the only physical theory of universal content which I am convinced, that within the framework of applicability of its basic concepts will never be overthrown. (Einstein in Rifkin, 1989, p. 59)
The next development which cast doubt on Newtonian physics was the rise of quantum mechanics which proved that some of Newton's theories do not work at all in the microscopic world. It was in 1900 that Planck discovered that the energy of heat radiation moves in abrupt discontinuous bursts (quantas), rather than the smooth continuous flow characterised by Newton or Descartes' clockwork world (Gang, 1990). However, perhaps quantum mechanics' greatest contribution to the debunking of modern science is its rejection of objectivity and so-called scientific detachment. Heisenburg and Bohr both maintain that within the microscopic world of quantum mechanics, matter cannot be isolated, precisely identified or predicted as they really are. This is because '...in the process of perceiving and analysing sub-atomic particles, the scientist unavoidably influences their behaviour through the use of measuring instruments' (Best, 1991, p. 197).
Whereas quantum mechanics exerts its influence in the microscopic world, chaos theory, the third component of the 'new science' extends into the macroscopic world and to physical processes in general. Emerging in the 1970s, chaos theory itself has three concepts which together form the basis of 'new sciences' most recent and popular treatise. The first of these is Lorenz's strange attractors, otherwise known as the butterfly effect. A meteorologist and mathematician, Lorenz showed that apparently deterministic systems could be unpredictable and chaotic by demonstrating the randomness of weather patterns (Gleick, 1989). Like much of chaos theory, this concept has found many wider applications.
Mandelbrot's concept of fractals, perhaps the most visually spectacular of the three, has created a new geometry of nature. This computer-generated artform presented mathematicians with a puzzling paradox. The Mandelbrot set is, according to its admirers, the most complex object in mathematics, yet it can be reproduced using the simplest descriptions (Gleick, 1989). Emerging from this work, amongst others, was the idea that complex systems give rise to simple behaviour and conversely that simple systems give rise to complex behaviour.
Prigogine and Stengers' concept of dissipative structures completes the trilogy of chaotic principles. These structures, which arise out of fluctuations within systems, are called dissipative because they require more energy to sustain themselves than the simpler structures they replace (Toffler in Prigogine and Stengers, 1984). This notion is controversial for a number of reasons, not the least of which is because it suggests that order can arise spontaneously out of random movement.
Each of these chaotic concepts propose that reality is dynamic, complex, random and unpredictable and have successfully represented these ideas with the assistance of remarkable, colourful computer-generated images. To create these images, programmes using complex non-linear equations have been devised in attempts to construct mathematical models of real systems in order to explain how they work.
But how does all this relate to environmenta l education and how can it assist in the achievement of environmental education goals? It may be useful at this stage to describe what the goals of environmental education are. According to Greenall (1987, p. 15), the aims of environmental education are:
Only some of these aims address education for the environment, which is arguably the only time 'real' environmental education takes place. The last four aims listed by Greenall contribute to education for the environment, as they deal with values education, environmental problem-solving and decision-making and taking environmental action. So then, to what extent can postmodern science contribute to these?
Briefly, its contribution to values education, problem-solving and environmental action lies in its questioning and rejection of modern industrial values and beliefs in favour of postmodern ecological ones. These ecological values, together with key concepts of environmental education (Meadows, 1989), strengthen the moral and intellectual foundation of environmental education.
Paradoxically, the strength of postmodern science's contribution to environmental education lies in the high status that science has enjoyed for so long in western societies. Many people are only willing to accept ideas if they can be proven scientifically, even though 'new science' says we can't possibly know everything and as Meadows' (1989, p. 10) adds,'....'we don't even understand how much we don't understand.'
The role of science in shaping the modern worldview has been substantial. Modern physics preached a doctrine of domination, supremacy and progress at any cost. 'New science' has disproved many of the precepts of modern science, so if science still has status in our society it should assist in shaping the new worldview. Beliefs emerging from postmodern science advocate making fundamental changes in the modern value base, which includes transforming prevailing concepts and replacing inappropriate processes. For example 'new science' asserts that:
The synthesis of these ideas can be expressed as action we must take to transform the way we view the world in order to save it and its inhabitants. Rifkin (1989, p. 293) says:
The emerging energy crisis and global warming trend represent the greatest challenge to the survival of our species in recorded history. To effectively meet that challenge, the human race will need to develop a new world view that takes into account the underlying tenets of the laws of thermodynamics and especially the Entropy law.
What postmodern science does not address very well are the social implications of the theory. Perhaps that is being left to postmodern social theorists! Rifkin, however, makes some attempt to fashion links and does so by advocating local diversity, decentralisation, down-sizing, regional self-sufficiency, and redistribution of wealth. Unfortunately, he does not provide any blueprint for this transformation, except to say that governments must provide incentives for change. Class and the growing underclass is not mentioned at all in his thesis nor does it feature in Toffler's (1980) work, though at least he advances the notion that individuals must work together for structural change. Of this transition he says;
....we should not think of a single massive reorganisation or of a single revolutionary, cataclysmic change imposed from the top, but of thousands of conscious, decentralised experiments that permit us to test new models of political decision making at local and regional levels in advance of their application to the national and transnational levels. (Toffler 1980, p. 453)
This advice is heartening to those seeking to educate for the environment, a fairer future, a better world for all, a healthy planet and a healthy people. It helps us believe that although the transition from the modern scientific paradigm to the new ecological one is problematic, it is also do-able and we have no choice but to believe that this is so.
References
Best, S. (1990) Chaos and Entropy, Science as Culture, Vol 2, Part 2, No. 11.
Gang, P. (1990) The Global-ecocentric Paradigm in Education, Holistic Education , 3(1), 11-16.
Greenall, A. (1987) A Political History of Environmental E ducation in Australia: Snakes and Ladders, in Robottom, I. (ed.) Environmental Education: Practice and Possibility, Deakin University, Victoria.
Gleick, J. (1987) Chaos - Making a 'New Science', Cardinal, London.
Lovelock, J. (1991) Gaia - The Practical Science of Planetary Medicine, Allen and Unwin, Sydney.
Meadows, D. (1989) Harvesting One Hundredfold, United Nations.
Rifkin, J. (1989) Entropy - Into the Greenhouse World, Bantam Books, New York.
Toffler, A. (1980) The Third Wave, Pan Books in association with Collins, London.