Reply to comment

As a high school student, I was exceptionally lucky to have a biology teacher who had a grasp of the fact that science was about more than facts and numbers. He too began his courses with a discussion of what science meant and how students learn (also intended to help students improve study skills in general). He also frequently sidetracked into current issues and used the science we were learning to enlighten us about the complex backgrounds of these issues. One in particular that I remember is the ecology behind forest fires and whether controlled burning should be implemented to eliminate natural fuel.

Despite such a stimulating experience in biology, my coursework in other scientific disciplines in high school encouraged the notion that science was more about quantities and processes than about ideas. Honestly, until beginning this course, it had never occurred to me how interdisciplinary the sciences are, or how well science as a whole fits into the liberal arts curriculum. In fact, the discussion occurring on this discussion board and in the textbook about the nature of truth and its dependence on available evidence is strikingly similar to the discussion about the nature of history and historical "truths" that we had in my medieval history class last week.

With regard to the "truths" and facts of both science and history, among other divisions of inquiry, I wonder whether it is in fact possible for students to understand the complex theoretical meanings of truth and evidence throughout their education. Or must a simpler but perhaps less accurate version be digested first before it is ultimately rejected by additional learning and growth?