Search For God The Failed Hypothesis How Science at Amazon
|
Scientific inquiry requires students to use higher order thinking attainments as they learn science using a hands-on minds-on approach. Inquiry’s foundation has it is origins in John Dewey’s book Democracy in Education (1916). In this book he describes how true learning begins with the curiosity of learners. Defining Scientific Inquiry His exploration found that student curiosity and involvement real science investigations moves students from passive learners to active learners. This is evidenced when students:
Scientific inquiry causes a rudimentary alter in science education, moving it away from traditionalisti instructing exercises of lecture and presentment to a collaborative kinship amidst teacher and student. In these collaborative environments, students take risks without fear of ridicule and commence to think in regards to science. Teachers become facilitators of their student’s inquiry by:
Initial confusedness by students analyzing experimental conclusions is not necessary bad, because they are using critical thinking processes. Confusion is good in this setting, because it demonstrates students are attempting to determine why they did not find the typical canned answer. Also, a hypothesis may actually result in a non-support statement as a result of the experiment. Too oftentimes students investigate canned labs which result in a guided hypothesis which may only result in supported finding. This leads them to feel when their experiment does not support their hypothesis they failed. They have not failed, nonetheless they do not recognise this in conventional science teaching. Scientific Inquiry Involves Asking Questions Student success designing experiments is based on asking the right questions. They need to construct questions which do not lead to yes/no or true/false answers, because the best questions are open-ended and inquiry-based. As students make an analyzation of proof to explain findings, open-ended questions provide the answers they need to formulate significant explanations. Answering questions in a student’s own words is primary for higher level of thinking and knowledge. A student’s own words disclose level of understanding and disclose incorrect conceptions based on prior noesis and experiences. Impact of Using Scientific Inquiry When students make personal connections when using scientific inquiry, internalization of the new noesis takes place. The key traits of scientific inquiry-based instructing and learning result in students:
250 of 271 people found the following review helpful. The structure of the book is roughly as follows: In the first chapter, Stenger lucidly explains the scientific method and what makes it such a potent investigative tool. This is important because many people have no real understanding of these concepts. He also refutes the widely held (at least, by religious people) view that science has nothing to say about religion. This is a very important point, which sets the foundation for the rest of the book. In the remainder of the book, Stenger goes on to assess the objective evidence for and against the God hypothesis by investigating a plethora of scientific and historical research. He covers everything from biblical prophecies to the illusion of design to prayer experiments and much more. All of this research could very well have produced compelling evidence for God, but none of it has. Stenger logically concludes that the evidence looks exactly the way we would expect it to look in the absence of God. Chapters 4 and 5 (entitled Cosmic Evidence and The Uncongenial Universe) deserve a special mention. These two chapters are the undisputed gems of the book, in my opinion. Perhaps this is not so surprising given Stenger’s expertise in physics and astronomy. For me personally, the knowledge I gained from these two chapters was easily worth the price of book by itself, and it was an absolute joy to have my eyes opened to some of the mind-boggling secrets of the universe that have been yielded by the investigative efforts of physicists and astronomers. Things do get a little hard to follow at times, but this is pretty much unavoidable for such a complex subject, and overall I think that Stenger does a great job of making it understandable to the lay reader. I won’t give too much away, but rest assured that pro-god arguments like “how can something come from nothing?” (with reference to the ‘big bang’) and “how do you explain the fine-tuning of the universe” are comprehensively dismantled. To conclude, I would strongly recommend this book for: In a nutshell, I think that Victor Stenger has done a wonderful job with this book. I have no hesitation in awarding it five stars – with six stars for chapters 4 and 5! 151 of 171 people found the following review helpful. One thing that I liked immensely about “God: The Failed Hypothesis” was its focus on science and showing that it is by far the best way to know the universe, not necessarily the only way, but indeed the best and most accurate method available to human beings to learning about life and all of its mysteries. Preceding my reading of “G:TFH,” I had just finished “Atheist Universe” by David Mills and while I agreed with almost everything he had to say, that book left me with an ambiguous feeling towards its merit. Not so the case with Stenger’s book; it could almost be called uplifting. As a former evangelical, who has studied almost every religion at least in a cursory manner, I am convinced that a personal, religiously affiliated, or intervening god does not exist and is a mere psychological projection. However, I had still remained somewhat agnostic toward the concept of a deistic god. Stenger shows that modern physics can indeed answer such seemingly hard questions as “Why is there something rather than nothing?” rather convincingly. This book weakened my position of agnostic deism from “maybe” to “probably not” because complete naturalism seems to be the best and most likely explanation. 111 of 127 people found the following review helpful. And then I picked up God: The Failed Hypothesis. I could not put it down; indeed I read it cover to cover within hours of purchase. Here was everything I wanted to say to individuals who were ignorant of rigorous science methodology, or scorned it, and relied solely upon faith and revelation. I have never taken to task people with faith; that is their prerogative. But I always felt inadequate when articulating my own opposite point of view. And how I find meaning and beauty in the arts and nature from within myself, independent of some mystical or religious basis. Furthermore, I see no need for immortality; once around will suffice. So read Stenger’s book; I promise you’re in for an emotional experience! |
Highly recommended
