I don’t have a reading but I have an exercise that I think works pretty well. I think of it as best to think of the distinction between faith, opinion, and knowledge. Its here but also attached.
------------------------------------ PS367: Climate Change: Science and Politics of a Global Crisis © Prof. Ronald Mitchell, 2016 Department of Political Science and Program in Environmental Studies Assignment 3 Essay (submit online): “Different things we believe” (10%) Write a 1,000 word essay explaining what differences, if any, you see in the use of the word “believe” in the following three sentences (choose whichever term in each of the 3 underlined pairs best fits your beliefs). n I believe that there is/is not a God. n I believe that American government will work better if Republicans/Democrats win the next election. n I believe that human-caused climate change is/is not already occurring. This assignment involves careful thought but NOT a response to the readings. The goal is to get you thinking about how our beliefs about religion, about politics, and about science differ. Bring in good ideas on these subjects! I prefer that your essay NOT tell me which of the underlined pairs you believe! Instead, write out your answers to yourself and then think about those answers to write an essay about the ways in which faith, opinion, and knowledge differ. How strong are your beliefs in each of these areas? On what basis have you come to hold your beliefs in each area? Are your beliefs in each area susceptible to change in response to data and evidence and, if so, to what kinds of data and evidence? Are your beliefs in each area susceptible to arguments by others? What do differences among these types of beliefs mean for political discourse? The goal is to use some time spent thinking about your own experience to help you develop an essay which is about how faith/opinion/knowledge differ more generally for everybody. ------------------------------------ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Beth DeSombre Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 7:51 AM To: GEP-Ed List <[email protected]> Subject: [gep-ed] Responses to Neil deGrasse Tyson? Hi folks: If you saw Tyson's tweet yesterday about creating the country of "rationalia" (where "all policy shall be based on the weight of evidence")-- there have been a few interesting responses designed to poke at the problems with his logic, like this one from vox: http://www.vox.com/2016/6/30/12064540/3-questions-for-neil-degrasse-tyson What I'm hoping exists -- perhaps as a response, or better yet as an already existing standalone piece -- is something that clearly articulates the "science can't decide policy, because policy involves making actual choices among multiple things we value and there's no "scientifically right" way to do that." I've tried a few different readings in my undergrad course to get at that point, but none has been successful at communicating it to my students (or my ES colleagues!). Does anyone have a reading to suggest? Beth -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "gep-ed" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "gep-ed" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
FaithOpinionKnowledge.docx
Description: MS-Word 2007 document
