The IECE are intended to be a series of excursus, that is, related explorations in the cultural history of science with one general goal of helping the modern student understand that what we label as science today is the result of a long evolution during which choices were made that determined its present shape as it is practiced in laboratories throughout the world. By placing science in the context of human history we intend to make its contemporary intellectual profile clearer, what it does do and what it does not. By including within the Earth curriculum such an exploration of its powers and limitations we intend to extend the realm of discourse of the Earth Curriculum to include the range of questions related to our physical and spiritual survival.

As science has evolved our relationship to and our expectations of the scientific enterprise have changed. We will interpret those changes by comparing what we call science now to what it was for the Roman Lucretius and the Medieval Aquinas and by viewing it through the lens of the James Carse, a comtemporary cultural critic. We will ask what the Roman Lucretius asked of his science, the atomism of Democritus and Leucippus, and how that compares with what we ask of ours. We will as the same of Aquinas for whom knowledge and living had as much to do with after life as during it. Lastly we will turn to the reflections of Carse, a tentieth century religious thinker, whose analysis leads us to ask what science in its present form can offer us as moral beings. These three thinkers represent a limited number of questions. They were not selected to represent a single meta-narrative. Accordingly, the narratives which emerge from their close study should be evaluated on the basis of their own rigor and integity. Yet, at the same time certain unavoidable questions will emerge to which it would be prudent to return as the conversation progresses.

Our method of study will be that of the philologist, a combination of explication de texte best defined as close reading (attending closely to the words) and an conscious effort to use ones life experience to make sense of what you are reading. The former requires concentration and the justification of ones observations by direct reference to the The latter is a touch more complicated in that it represents a reciprocal circular activity. Effectively, one has a conversation with a text in which the text becomes vivified by the experience of the reader and the readerís experience and understanding is in turn extended by the way that the text challenges the grasp of the reader in an area in which the reader already has an incipient understanding. An example is that reading Lucretiusí or Aquinasí reflections on the immortality of the soul should involve in part the readerís personal contention with the reality of his or her own death, and, at the same time, the extension of that internal conversation by the reality of the text.

The method of the philologist thus implies two forms of rigor, ways of judging the efficacy. The first requires that reader show precisely where in ( the precise words) and how (the way they construe specific expressions) the text says what they claim. The second requires that claim be justified in the context of the readerîs experience.

There are two reasons for the conscious practice of this method. The first is that it is the method of the humanities and it must be practiced to be perfected. Just as in the interpretation of numerical data in science with all its eccentricities, it is a sine qua non to attend to the details (metadata, etc.) so too is precise attention to words and their contexts in the humanities. This requires focused educational attention in both knowledge domains because mass media has diminished the attention span of so many of us, but particularly the young who were born into it. The second is that it , as the method of the humanistic disciplines, de facto requires the introduction of the personal into the process, it , as such, helps to place in profile the methodology of the sciences which de facto methodically exclude the personal. Exploring this basic difference and its implications is a significant part of this unitís potential.

Each of the three following units will have the following parts: Introduction; Selected Passages; Exegetical Exercises; Questions for Consideration; Project Possibilities. We will be interested in what students and teachers think was useful and what they suggest for the next iteration.

Unit One: Ancient Science and Philosophy

Lucretius the Roman Poet of Greek Atomic Theory and Hedonist Philosophy

Work: De Rerum Natura, (On the Nature of the Universe)

Introduction

Lucretius was a Roman poet of the first century BC who wrote an epic devoted to the philosophy of Epicurus) who was a Greek living in the third century BC (Read Biographies A and B,links) Epicurusí work was based on the first full fledged statement of the atomic theory developed by Democritus and Leucippus(Read biographies C and D). So what we have is a Roman poet writing a an epic poem rooted in the philosophy of a Greek who based his philosophy of life on the work of two of the first physical scientists! Not the kind of thing you hear much about these days! Already you are aware of how what you are discovering modern science to be is far different from what these early pioneers construed as the discipline. An important part of what you will be doing is exploring these differences. Your goal in the end is to see what is the same and what is different , in the language of historians to understand more about the historical continuities ( areas of likeness ) and discontinuities (areas of difference). Imagine Western civilizationís history of science and philosophy as an extended conversation in which generations of people enter and leave. Some of what has been said becomes part of what is recorded and remembered. Some cast away and only of interest to those who wish to recreate the lost past. By the time you are done you should have a good idea of how the contemporary world of science differs from that of antiquity. Once you know the likenesses and differences you then can take the next human step and evaluate the change in the context of human needs.

Selected passages:

Lucetius, On the Nature of the Universe, Penquin Classic edition trans. by R.E. Latham

Passage 1: Pps. 29-45: ìOne thing worries meÖimpact and movements on which everything depends.î From Book I, ìMatter and Space.î

Passage 2: Pps. 217-218. ìIn days of oldÖ.the argument on which I have embarked.î From Book VI, ìMeteorology and Geology.î

Passage 3: Pps. 220-223, p. 228. ìFirst, then, the reason why the blue Öthe cause of flame-bright flashes.î and ìThrough many substancesÖ.loosen all collisions.î From Book VI, ìMeteorology and Geology î

Passage 4: Pps. 229-230. ìHere then is a plain and intelligle accountÖ.fire on the mountain tops?î From Book VI, Ibid.

Passage 5: Pps 231-33. ìThe formation of cloudsÖthe properties of the elements.î From Book VI, Ibid.

Passage 6: Pps.235-36 ì A point that sometimes occasions surpriseÖfor the guidance of its waves.î From Book VI, Ibid.

Exegetical exercises-To understand Lucretius you have to learn to read closely. Even though there may be no final answers, it is still true that some arguments are better than others. The way you make your arguments better is to show exactly how the words of the text support your case and how your case is rooted in your experience of life. The following are chosen for you to practice this skill with your teacher and peers. Of course they are from Lucretius and what you get from them will help you with later tasks. Get your heads in to the words and try to reduce both the noise around you and in you. It is the only way. It is called thinking. What do the followin sentences mean? Please feel free to go to their context in the work to help you get at them.

1)From passage 1: ìYou yourselfÖafter death.î P.30 (Pedagogical Prompt -Try to get them to take up the the value of the fear of death for the prophets and what that is about and as they express opinions ask them whether they have enough information in this passage to make their cases. Also introduce the need to reflect on the fear of death as a significant inner experience of central importance to the true human understanding of this work. What is ìhocus-pocusî?, ìhic est corpus meumî, this is my body, part of the Catholic mass in which the the bread becomes the body of Christ to be consumed by the flock)

2) From Passage 1: ìThe reasonÖ.aid of the godsî p. 31 (PP ñ focus on the meaning of the word ìdiscernableî and what would be acceptable as a ìdiscernableî cause)

3) From Passage 3: ìAs for lightning Ö..collisionî p. 222 (PP- focus on the method of proof to lay the foundation for the discussion of the difference between modern and ancient systems of proof.

Questions for consideration:

Why did Lucretius choose to write in poetic form? Or, why did he as a poet choose a philosophico-scientific subject? Are these two questions the same and , if not, why not?

2) How does Lucretiusí description of natural phenomena differ from your efforts to do the same in Units one and two of the Earth curriculum? Why do these differences exist? What could Lucretius learn from contemporary science and visa versa?

3) In their order of importance what do you think Lucretiusí three main concerns are?

4) What view of the gods does Lucretius want his audience to hold and why?

Possible Projects:

Unit 1: Medieval Science and Philosophy

Unit 2: Contempoary Critique of Scientific Enterprise