What makes teaching philosophy of science to non-philosophy students different from teaching it to philosophy students, and how should lecturers in philosophy adapt to an audience of practitioners of a field of study that they are reflecting on? In this paper we address this question by analyzing the differences between these student groups, and based on this analysis we make suggestions as to how philosophy of science can be taught to non-philosophy students in an effective and attractive way. Starting-point is (...) the observation that not only the background knowledge and interests of these students but also the aims of the respective courses will differ. We present a comparative analysis of the demands and conditions for teaching philosophy of science to the different types of students, focusing on learning objectives and didactic approaches. Next, we apply our analysis to a concrete example, the role of values in science, and discuss how this may be taught to either philosophy students or non-philosophy students. Finally, we discuss an alternative format for teaching philosophy to non-philosophy students. (shrink)
In this discussion note I will critically analyze the work of J. Wentzel van Huyssteen and review the volume The Evolution of Rationality, published in his honor. This volume shows the great value and wide influence of the contributions of Van Huyssteen to the fields of ‘Science and Theology’ and ‘Science and Religion’ in general, and his postfoundational concept of rationality in particular. However, I will demonstrate that, in his work religion – unlike science – is not taken seriously. Although (...) Van Huyssteen reflects on the specific nature of religion, he does not sufficiently incorporate the results of these reflections into his works. The same fallacy can be found in others who have written on ‘Science and Religion’ and ‘Science and Theology’. (shrink)
In the Enneads Plotinus articulates an account of ‘creation’ following in the tradition, albeit critically, of Plato’s Timaeus. This article compares Hart’s account of creation, as expressed in The Beauty of the Infinite: The Aesthetics of Christian Truth , and other secondary literature, with that of Plotinus’s. Some significant differences and interesting parallels are highlighted.