 |
|
 |
Home
Page
Background
& Affiliations
Guiding
Questions
Publications
Social
Causes
Research
& Teaching
Other
Activities
Current
Projects
I'm a cosmologist in the broad sense of the term. My work is guided by the theme of looking for meaning in the modern (scientific) universe. Science has uncovered remarkable insights that have profound implications for our perspective on who we are, where we came from, and where we are going (e.g. scientific cosmology, relativity, quantum physics, ideas of systems theory, emergent complexity, biological evolution, etc.). But it can be difficult to translate this knowledge into a form that concretely helps us see ourselves as part of the cosmos. In fact, the scientific picture of the universe can be alienating, presenting a challenge to our ability to find a true home for ourselves within the model of the universe it describes. My work focuses on developing ways for people to see a place for themselves within the context of our scientific understanding of the universe. Teaching and research form two complementary and equally important aspects of this "science integration" effort, which is articulated in the Science Integration Institute I helped found.
The fundamental problem that motivates the need for science integration is nicely summed up by Bryan Appleyard's statement, "On the maps provided by science, we find everything except ourselves." The complementary teaching and research aspects of science integration correspond, respectively, to illustrating more clearly where we fit into the current map of scientific concepts, and refining and expanding the map itself to more naturally include us, with our conscious awareness and feelings.
Because science integration is a newly emerging field and because it is closely related to the more established fields of science education and traditional science research, one of the biggest struggles I face is trying to maintain the clear identity of the new field of scholarship as I help carve out a niche for it. I'm easily pulled into being categorized as science education specialist or research physicist, but doing science integration well requires not being exactly either a research physicist or a science ed. specialist. Science integration links closely with teaching because much of why people struggle with science is this sense of alienation. And fundamental science research is also needed (especially e.g. in areas like information physics, understanding consciousness, etc.) to expand the map beyond our current limited models, to construct a map on which we're more able to find a place for ourselves.
Teaching
“Our role consists of widening and broadening the visual field so that the whole spectrum of personal meaning becomes conscious and visible.” -- Viktor Frankl
I teach primarily in order to help others see how science can be meaningful, and as part of the process of figuring that out for myself. My strong interest in science education arose because because I think the sense of alienation and dryness of science is one of the main stumbling blocks to learning it, and that's also the core of the problem I'm trying to work on.
Research
“Instead of our theory being as wide as reality, our perception of reality may become as narrow as our theory.” -- Kenneth Craik
Part of the reason I think science feels alienating is that it focuses our attention on one limited model of reality and then encourages us to think this model is all there is to reality. The quotation from Kenneth Craik summarizes this problem, and Ed Harrison articulates the issue very well in his book, Masks of the Universe. Harrison's analogy is that our models put "masks" on the real Universe, highlighting some aspects of the Universe and ignoring others. Fundamental science research is needed (especially e.g. in areas like information physics, understanding consciousness, etc.) whose direct objective is to expand our map of the Universe beyond our current models, to construct a map on which we're more able to find a place for ourselves.
The overarching theme of my physics research is a careful and rigorous expansion of physics framework of fundamental concepts (constructing a new map or "mask" in Harrison's terms) to make room for meaning but without giving up the benefits of objectivity. We need to be intellectually honsest - we don't want to forget that many beliefs really are not true. But we also don't want to mistakenly think we live in a meaningless universe only because we've constructed a model that defines away the parts that are connected to meaning, and then forgotten that it's a limited model.
Some of my writing on these topics:
An Ordinary World: The role of science in your search for personal meaning, Science Integration Institute, OR (2009)
An outline of the integrated research and teaching program I'm helping to develop.
Untangling the Hard Problem of Consciousness (March 2009 draft)
The Perceived Conflict between Science and Meaning,” APS Forum on Physics and Society of the American Physical Society (April 2001)
Teaching college science with a connection to personal meaning, The Epic of Evolution Journal
(Spring, 2000)Guest Comment: Making Physical Science Courses Valuable to Non-scientists, American Journal of Physics, p. 365, May, 1997.
Other related reading:
Bryan Appleyard, Understanding the Present: Science and the soul of modern man, Doubleday, NY (1992)
I disagree with Appleyard's conclusion, but he articulates very clearly and persuasively the modern-science-induced problem of alienation.
Primack and Abrams, The View from the Center of the Universe
E. Harrison, Masks of the Universe: Changing ideas on the nature of the cosmos, 2e, Cambridge University Press, UK (2003)
Viktor Frankl, Man's Search for Meaning
Louise B. Young, The Unfinished Universe
William James writings (list key quotes her that express why I like James)
Griffin, The Reenchantment of Science
Brian Swimme (The Hidden Heart of the Cosmos; The Universe is a Green Dragon)
Edwin Dobb, Without earth there is no heaven, Harpers, 1995
Eric Chaisson, Cosmic Evolution
David Chalmers on consciousness and the hard problem, explanatory gap, etc.
