Discussion

The purpose of the study was to examine whether students would recognize the value of learning science in the context of classical aesthetics, and demonstrate aesthetical knowledge while incorporating the language of aesthetics and philosophy in their understanding and descriptions of nature and the nature of science.

The results of this study were obtained over a four month period during which students received explicit instruction regarding the philosophy of aesthetics and its relationship to nature and science. Prior to this instruction all participants of the study completed a Pre-Instruction Survey. Prior to each instructional unit (antinomy) students completed an Antinomy Questionnaire. After the completion of the instructional unit the students completed the questionnaire again. A total of five instructional units were completed over the duration of the study. At the end of the study period the students completed the first Survey (Post-Instruction) again. Students were then asked to write an anonymous response to the question, “Was this [learning science in the context of classical aesthetics] a valuable experience? Why?”

Three questions were asked by this study. The first question asked if students would recognize the value of incorporating aesthetics (and related philosophical concepts) into their science instruction. The Pre-Post Instructional Survey demonstrated an increase of 36.7% in students expressing a positive attitude towards aesthetics instruction. Concomitant with this there was a 23.3% decline in those students who had a negative attitude regarding this instruction. The summary of the Antinomy Questionnaires indicated an average change of 30% improvement of attitude regarding aesthetic instruction with the majority (69%) demonstrating no change in attitude compared to pre-instruction. Finally, there was dramatic support for aesthetic instruction in the Anonymous Free-Response Survey with 88% of the students stating that they believe the instruction was a valuable experience; as one student stated, “This was extremely valuable for many reasons. It opened up science in a new way for me to incorporate philosophy and freedom of thought into the scientific field which I had previously considered really strict.”

The second question asked if students would demonstrate the acquisition of aesthetical/philosophical knowledge as a result of instruction in the context of their science class. The Pre-Post Instructional Survey demonstrated a 35% increase aesthetical/philosophical knowledge gained by students during the duration of the study. The Antinomy Questionnaires yielded a higher average result of 49% for knowledge acquisition. This may be due to the more specific nature of the antinomy questions which may have given students more opportunity to demonstrate knowledge acquisition. Finally, in the Anonymous Free-Response Survey, 88% of the students claimed that they had learned something from the experience. As one student stated, “…it gave me a chance to think about things I’ve never really thought about. It has opened my mind to new ideas and even changed my point of view about certain things.”

The third and final question considered whether or not students would begin to incorporate the language of aesthetics and philosophy. Language was measured not only by the use of domain-specific terminology, but also by the utilization of phrases that connote ideas that are unique to aesthetics and philosophy. The Pre-Post Instructional Survey demonstrated an increase of 47% in the use of the language of aesthetics as a result of instruction. The average results of the Antinomy Questionnaires showed a slightly lower percentage of 35% for the inclusion of aesthetical language. Only 25% of the students demonstrated aesthetical/philosophical language in the answer to the Anonymous Free-Response Survey. It is not surprising that the students did not employ aesthetical language to the extent that they demonstrated knowledge given the fact that use of domain specific language is a higher order skill. Nevertheless, students did demonstrate this ability as evinced by these responses to the Knowable/Mystery antinomy: “Mystery is beauty waiting to be unraveled. The secretive component to mystery is what influences us to gain to knowledge to that truth within mystery,” and “Mystery is what keeps men honest. Mystery is a safeguard, the watcher or power, it is knowledge’s balance.”

It has been suggested in this Action Research Project that Beauty is a criterion of truth in science. When hypotheses and theories are beautiful they are so because they reflect the ontological Beauty present within Nature. According to Classical Aesthetics this Beauty holds within herself Mystery which reminds us of the limits of our epistemologies (including science) while transfiguring our inquiry from an investigation of an object to an epiphany of the Other. This is a radical re-conceptualization of the Nature of Science—one that many scientists may believe is unnecessary or counterproductive, because they have either identified science with scientism or have been inculcated into an understanding of science based, in part, on misconception and myth.

The next generation of scientists may be more open to challenging the Baconian axiom of Science: Scientia est Potentia—Knowledge is Power; that the goal of science is the empowerment of man through the manipulation of nature. But, Beauty cannot be possessed, only safeguarded. And it is only with the utmost care and humility that we should ever consider manipulating Her. Would we dare to complete Schubert’s Unfinished Symphony? What would happen if someone entered the National Gallery and attempted to finish Leonardo da Vinci’s uncompleted painting, “The Virgin and Child with St. Anne and St. John the Baptist”? Yet, scientists are pushing headlong into the manipulation of genomes—the material manifestation of Beauty’s formal cause as a Classical Aesthetician might characterize DNA. Do these scientists expect that genomic manipulations will produce organisms that will possess more unity, harmony, symmetry, and wholeness than they did formally? Will they be more radiant? Does any one care or think that these are questions worthy of asking? The statement made by the students participating in this study indicates that a new generation of scientists may be ready for a re-conceptualization of science.

Remember the student who said , “It opened up science in a new way for me to incorporate philosophy and freedom of thought into the scientific field which I had previously considered really strict.” Here, we begin to see an openness to re-conceptualizing science; one willing to consider the value of incorporating aesthetically and philosophical ideas into what was formally believed to be “really strict.” Additionally, students recognized the value of learning science in the context of classical aesthetics and what a science informed by this perspective might look like. “I think students would have greater appreciation for science if they understood the beauty of it. Then, I think that would make them more motivated to learn science and do well in class.” They also began to perceive that a new, more modest, science might emerge from being informed by Beauty. “You get to appreciate the beauty within science and science is not all about trying to find an answer.” What is science then, if it is not all about trying to find an answer? Perhaps it is more than taking Francis Bacon’s inquisitional stance to force nature to reveal her secrets:

“The secret workings of nature do not reveal themselves to one who simply contemplates the natural flow of events. It is when nature is tormented by art, when man interferes with nature, vexes nature, tries to make her do what he wants, not what she wants, that he begins to understand how she works and my hope to learn how to control her…. It is my intention to bind, and place at your command, nature….”

(Francis Bacon as quoted by Comstock, 2000, p. 139)

Perhaps science, newly configured by Classical Aesthetics, will not approach Nature as an object to be vexed, tormented, and bound, but as the Other who simply asks of us to be open; as one student stated, “By giving Beauty a chance, I hope to be more open-minded.” And in this openness we may encounter Beauty’s mystery which may promote an even greater stimulus to learn, as observed by the student who said, “Mystery is beauty waiting to be unraveled. The secretive component to mystery is what influences us to gain to knowledge to that truth within mystery.” But as another student reflected, mystery is the antinomy of the knowable, Bacon's postulated source of power, and as such is its necessary balance: “Mystery is what keeps men honest. Mystery is a safeguard, the watcher of power, it is knowledge’s balance.” This is a science that I believe that the next generation is ready, even eager, to embrace.

The favorable response expressed by the students who participated in the study has encouraged me to continue to develop and expand the curriculum for the inclusion of Classical Aesthetics in my science courses. Given the content laden agenda due to State Standards and AP requirements it is anticipated that these discussions will be reserved for the Spring semester after the May examinations. Although I believe that teaching science in the context of Classical Aesthetics would be of value in other classroom settings, there are numerous obstacles that would hinder this from occurring including the lack of perceived relevance by teachers, students, and administration and the fact that it is difficult to correlate these topic with State Standards. Nevertheless, I intend to incorporate this Action Research Report and the associated curriculum into my website so that teachers and students may access it should they wish to examine these issues.

The original plan was to cover all 18 antinomies of the Model of the Human Atom, but only five were covered during the duration of the study. This was in part due to the fact that each antinomy sparked more discussion than I had originally anticipated. Furthermore, the pressure of covering all of the topics in the AP curriculum forced me to keep these discussions limited to about ten minutes several times per week. In addition, I had originally planned to have students complete the Antinomy Questionnaires in class, but because of time constraints I allowed the students to take them home. I noticed that on more than one occasion students were quickly filling them in the next day just before they were due to be turned in. Undoubtedly, this influenced the quality of the responses offered by these students.

The antinomies discussed belonged only to the first domain of Ontology (the Beautiful) as a result Epistemology (the True) or Ethics (the Good) were only discussed in passing. The Initial/Final Survey (Pre-Post Instructional Survey) included questions pertaining to all three domains. In spite of the minimal coverage in epistemology and ethics a significant number of students demonstrated a growth in knowledge in these areas. One can only speculate how much more they would have learned had we had the opportunity to discuss these philosophical domains in detail.

The students that participated in my study were from my AP Chemistry class. All of these students had had me the previous year for Honors Chemistry. They are a very bright and inquisitive group and it was for these reasons that they were chosen. Their responses are evidence of this. It is possible, perhaps even likely, that another group of students would not demonstrate the same level of intellectual curiosity or growth in knowledge as did the study group.

I intend to continue to introduce my science students to Classical Aesthetics in the future. If I were to continue this study, I would limit the duration of the study to the last month of school which has become more or less “dead time” as a result of our testing schedule. The curriculum could be introduced to a broader range of students and potentially more topics (antinomies) could be covered since we would not be under the pressure to cover the State Standards at this time. Furthermore, other teachers may be more open to introduce these ideas to their students during this time for the reasons mentioned above and because it offers them a ready-made curriculum.

As reported in the Findings, one student response was mixed in regards to the value of learning science in the context of classical aesthetics; as she stated: “Was this a valuable experience?—somewhat. Why?—It is nice to know about all the philosophy, and philosophers, and beliefs. Why not?—My opinions did not change." Was this student different from the others who participated in the study? The demographic survey indicated that she was—she was the only student who identified herself as an atheist and a materialist and as such she rejected the idea of metaphysics, including radiance of form, a central tenant of classical aesthetics. Nevertheless, during a one-on-one interview with this student she did demonstrate, if not a change of opinion, an uncertainty regarding science’s ability to perceive the Beautiful.

Two students volunteered to participate in a one-on-one interview. During this interview with the students, which coincidentally included the young-lady above, I had them watch an excerpt of the movie, The Red Violin. The excerpt showed the response of three characters, a violinist, an appraiser, and an engineer, to the main character of the movie—a red violin. The violinist did not recognize the beauty of the violin even after he played it (he was arrogant and smug). The appraiser referred to the violin as, “The perfect marriage of science and beauty.” The engineer described the violin as the “…single most perfect acoustic machine I have ever seen.” As the latter two characters discussed the violin, the appraiser asked the rhetorical question, “What do you do when the thing you most want is so perfect?” He then asked the engineer, what appeared to be an irrelevant question, “Do you have children?” “I know what you mean,” replied the engineer. “I would love to have this baby for myself.” “Really,” the appraiser responded. “What would you do?” “Take it apart. Find out how it works,” the engineer replied.

            I asked the student who she believed appreciated the violin the most.
            “The engineer…he was in awe,” she replied. “I’d say the engineer…. The engineer was way more into it.”
            “What about when the engineer said he wanted to take it apart and the appraiser said, ‘I don’t think you get it.’ What do you think he meant by that?” I asked.
            “Oh. Umm,” the student responded as she thought about the appraiser’s response. “The appraiser considers it like a living thing, almost. It’s not just a tool that you use,” she continued.
            “Given that reflection,” I continued, “do you still stick by your assessment that the engineer appreciated the violin the most?”
            “No.”
            “Why?
            “A living thing is more valuable than a machine,” she concluded.
            The student found herself in a paradoxical position—her paradigm identified her with the engineer, yet she was able to recognize that the appraiser saw and appreciated a Beauty which her paradigm could not perceive.
            “What do you think the engineer was lacking that the appraiser had?” I asked.
            “Children?” she wondered. “Not sure what it is,” she finally conceded.

We pretty much left it at that. Although I may have been able to assist her in the resolution of this dilemma—I might have suggested that the appraiser viewed the violin not as an object, but as the Other, who like children, must be cared for, but are never possessed, must be disciplined, but with humble love and fearful awe,—but, the objective of my Action Research Project was not to convince students of the value of teaching science in the context of classical aesthetics, rather it was to introduce them to new and perhaps challenging ideas. Our young materialist was indeed challenged and her uncertainty as to why the appraiser was able to perceive a Beauty unrecognized by the engineer is reflected in her assessment of the value of teaching science in the context of classical aesthetics.

Teaching Science in the Context of Classical Aesthetics

Discussion