Scientific knowledge is based on empirical evidence, and is appropriate for understanding the natural world, but it provides only a limited understanding of the supernatural, aesthetic, or other ways of knowing, such as art, philosophy, or religion.1
Here follows a very short rant. Maybe a rantlet.
This bothers me. It's a clear nod to the godbodies—we don't have apologia or disclaimers in the math standards, the history standards, or the geography standards. We don't have to say that an understanding of literary conventions in English will help you to understand and interpret texts written in English and literary traditions that share a similar cultural background, but may not be easily applied to an understanding of the narrative traditions of a non-literary culture (though perhaps we should!).
What do you all think of this?
1
From the Florida Standards for Science Education, Grade 7. It is, of course, not the only standard, nor even the most important.![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
