Katha 2014: Science and Critical Thinking in MTBMLE

Minutes of the Workshop transcribed. Speaker Dr. Fransisco Datar

KATHA 2014 Part 2: Day 6

Science Track: Science and Critical Thinking in MTBMLE

Dr. Fransisco Datar

Full  Professor

University of the Philippines Diliman

August 30, 2014

Minutes of the Workshop

1. Introduction. The speaker emphasized that the lecture would be about teaching science through critical thinking, how science is made. He first introduced the origin of science and proceeded with the concept of scientific method, in which it can be used in everyday life, especially in teaching. Scientific method should be simple, can be tested to answer one’s question. One must have a question at hand that should yield ample information so that conclusions can be made.

2. The light bulb. The speaker went on with a simple story with a light bulb and related it with scientific method, where it starts with an observation and will be considered as a problem. One must then hypothesize about the problem, possible reasons and explanations to the problem at hand. Hypothesis serves as a temporary explanation to the problem. The speaker collected different hypotheses from the teacher-participants. He also said that such hypotheses are arranged in order, then proceed with ways on how to test them and finally reject or accept your guess. Theory is defined as a tested explanation of facts compared to hypothesis which still needs to be tested.  Accepted hypothesis is when one has confirmed the problem after testing it in different ways. One should also be careful in interpreting data at hand. The speaker went on with the participation of the teachers with scientific thinking and hypothesis making by conducting different tests on the problem. He summed up the use of scientific method which is used in everyday life. Analysis, interpretation and conclusion should be “based only on the data that you have collected.”

3. Scientific Methodology. This method is a cycle of observation of facts and events and phenomena, problem identification, hypothesis making, test and data gathering, interpretation of data and finally conclusion. Using shortcuts, according to the speaker leads to bad conclusions and more often than not miscommunication.  Data should be sufficient enough to make a good conclusion. This is why sometimes problems are not solved properly because data is not sufficient, the testing of hypothesis is inappropriate and conclusions are wrong.

4. How do we do science?  “We employ logical and rational thought, that is, induction and reduction.” One must use induction to generalize. The speaker gave an example on how the thought is inductive on the health situation of a child. Deduction, on the other hand, you come from the generalization to the specifics. He gave an example on green-leaf plants that undergo photosynthesis and examples such as gumamela which also undergoes photosynthesis.

5. Scientific Reasoning. This should be testable, falsifiable, and repeatable. The problem is, people are often tied to religion, where “if they leave God out of the text, then it will be less religious and more scientific.” The speaker said that they are two very different things and should not be contested with each other. He gave an example on if the participants know their father, which may either be religious or scientific; that is, the mother only knows who one’s father is. Scientific method is applied with starting to ask questions. He also distinguishes between scientific method and faith. Scientific method starts with, for one, DNA testing, or resorting to faith. “Science deals not with the gods above but with the worlds below. It does not refute the gods; it merely ignores them in its explanations of the natural world.” One does not explain to the children that it is what it is, because it does not generate learning.

6. How do we test: creation of heaven and hell.  God’s will is completely different from scientific method. The question raised was was it God’s will for the participants to be in the conference? One participant said it is the principal’s will. One must come up with a hypothesis that his presence is God’s will. Answers were raised, but the point was about not being able to test the hypothesis because the law of scientific method is crashed in this type of situation. Such situation is mostly based on faith, the same way that people believe that they are created by God. This is the difference between science and faith that should not be contested with each other because neither should be questioned about a certain phenomenon that is exclusively copyrighted in one side. It is like playing patintero with the use of the rules of badminton. An issue was raised that faith may be based on making a problem that can be solved. But then it is still faith. These two issues should not be ever contested, the speaker emphasized. Another issue is raised on the religion in public schools. These are the limits of science, like the question on the existence of heaven, unless someone comes back from that place. There are questions on life and existence that science cannot answer because science has a specific scope only. An issue was raised on leaving such questions and issues in religion and values education, which is exactly the point raised by the speaker. Limitations change, and this should be accounted for in both science and faith. Data from the past may not be sufficient in the present. An example raised was the theory of evolution by Darwin. Evolution cannot occur when the same type of species co-exist with each other. The speaker said that science has a boundary, that’s why we interpret only based on the data at hand. When science cannot explain a phenomenon, faith comes in. Examples on debunked theories are the geocentric theory at the time Aristotle, measurements on every living being on earth, that the earth is round. An issue was raised on the measurements of Noah’s ark and Genesis that may be explained by science. But this is debunked by the speaker because a lot of problems are raised especially when religion and science are connected together. Most of the participants were not convinced that religion and science should be separated as subjects to point. Most of them were trying to convey that religion can also be science. But the speaker kept on emphasizing that religion should not be encircled with science because they are two very different things. Faith is necessary but it cannot be infused with science per se. “Any proposition that is stated as absolute or does not allow the possibility of falsification is not a scientific hypothesis and should be considered as such.  “When you start interpreting the bible literally, it becomes a problem especially when you use scientific method.” When it comes to science, all we can say is that this is the best explanation we can provide based only on the data on hand on that day. Exactly because science and faith are two very different games that’s why they cannot be interconnected with each other. Science has limits and boundaries, while in religion, faith is the base. More examples on trying to connect science with faith were provided by the speaker to enlighten the speakers on the difference between the two. As teachers of science, they have to clarify to themselves the difference between science and faith before they teach it. He also gave an anthropological example on the concept of making man and woman based on the bible and based on the Tagalog people in the baybayin system. It is about leaving creation to faith. “Science is self-correcting, because it also evolves.” Reading the bible should take into account the different cultures of the world, according to the speaker. “We never talked of absolute truth in science.”

7. Critical Thinking. “In science, we are not looking for the absolute truth.” In science, it is limited by the data one has in his hands. The speaker emphasized that two very different things such as science and faith should not be fused with each other. There should be a difference between what is scientific and what is not. The speaker said that the teachers should let the students process ideas, interpret data, explain interpretations, conduct conclusions and think, not just memorize formula. Teachers should teach students to think critically; however it is not the norm in the Philippine context. Science taught in formula is “sayangs”. “Critical thinking means to train students to ask productive questions.” There are a lot of things that science did not invent. There are a lot of academic fields that produce inventions using critical thinking. But everything falls under science. Science taught by the book means no progress in science. The speaker said that the teachers should encourage the students to ask questions and not dismiss them as being nuisance.

8. Elements of Reasoning.  1) Purpose. It is important for the students to see the relationships between things on scientific facts. They should teach them to process ideas. 2) Perspective 3) Problem 4) Evidence 5) Assumption 6) Concepts 7) Implications. When it comes to understanding the concepts, it is important to use the principle of parsimony. This entails that explanations should be brief and concise. An example is the existence of extraterrestrials, where the problem would lie in the testing of the hypothesis using the scientific reasoning. The principle or law of parsimony relies on the data on hand to produce probable results and truths, and especially making the most basic explanations. This is also termed as the Ockham’s Razor. This also entails the KISS principle: Keep it short and simple. 8) Consequences.

9. Standards of Reasoning. 1) Clarity 2) Precision 3) Accuracy 4) Adequately 5) Depth. This is teaching the student very deeply without letting him memorize and make him write definitions. 6) Relevance 7) Coherence. The ultimate goal is to let the student think critically. The child should also see the significance of this topic in his own life.

10) The Scientific Reasoning and Critical Thinking in MTBMLE. There is no such thing as Singapore Science or Valenzuela Science. The problem lies with the use of English as medium of instruction in Science. Science teachers are a bad product of a bad and corrupted system where English is worshipped as the privileged language over Filipino. Materials are written in English because that’s how the system works.