Michael J. Kane wrote:
> My question is: If we allow for alternative ways of knowing
> (AWK) into our psychology curricula, then why not allow
> religious (mainstream or otherwise) views on human and
> universal origins to enter biology and physical science
> curricula?
>
> Why is it okay to allow mystical perspectives into psychology
> but not into the "harder" sciences?
Because many people believe that, although a natural-science approach is
excellent for understanding the physical world, it is very limited when
we apply it to research on humans. They believe that other approaches
involving a transcendent realm (i.e., the supernatural) are necessary
for understanding human nature. It seems self-evident to them that we
must consider something other than physical processes if we wish to
understand the most fundamental aspects of the human mind and human
experiences. What we call science, they are arguing, must be expanded:
it must include methods and techniques that allow us to study this
transcendent realm. The natural sciences (including physics, chemistry,
and biology) do not need to incorporate such methods and techniques
because they focus on the physical.
I don't agree with these people but I understand that they are starting
with a different set of assumptions than I; and, thus, they feel they
must include methods that seem unnecessary and unscientific to me.
Jeff
--
Jeffry P. Ricker, Ph.D. Office Phone: (480) 423-6213
9000 E. Chaparral Rd. FAX Number: (480) 423-6298
Psychology Department [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Scottsdale Community College
Scottsdale, AZ 85256-2626
"The truth is rare and never simple."
Oscar Wilde
"Science must begin with myths and with the criticism of myths"
Karl Popper
"If you want to learn new things, you should try reading old books."
Richard Cytowic
