Over the 2 years of the study, many students shifted in their epistemological commitments with respect to the knowledge claims made by formal science. While there was initially a large number of students who talked about the absolute truths created through the scientific effort (about 70%), only a small number adhered to such discourse toward the end of the second year (about 17%). The remaining students talked about scientific knowledge as negotiated and accepted because of its descriptive power not its truth value. The following quotations illustrate the two types of claims to rationality in the scientific enterprise (Quadrant I, Figure 1).
(Socially constructed:) [Physics] tries to model the universe because scientists understand that they can't really know what nature and science really is, but, so I guess the closest they can get is to make a model of it, a representation of what it is. And I think as long as the math part of it, as long as that is accurate and your predictions that you get from using your mathematical model, as long as those are accurate, it doesn't -- I don't think it matters.
(Absolute:) I cannot agree with the fact that the world is the subjective creation of individual observers while there is nothing subjective about the method of physics. The reason is, that physics must be made up of theories which many physicists can agree on, or at least with similar topics of physics. Scientists had created several proposals of something and another states his opinion about that issue, whether it is valid or not. Therefore, the world is not made up of individual observers.
Students talked about the Christian God and formal religious organization. Typical student satements that illustrate the rational in religious discourse (Quadrant II, Figure 1) were:
(Socially constructed:) In contrast to the personal experience of God, there are also the socially constructed organized religions and their practices. Because of their negotiated character these practices vary across denominations and religions.
(Absolute:) God exists, because of all the miracles that he has done and everything from the past and the history says in the bible... When I hear what other people think how the Earth was created, I say, "well that is wrong."... I would think that religion is completely by the book of God, is not artificial, because I have grown up that way.
The existence of a subjective dimension is based on the observation of that students talked about personal and social influences on scientific and religious knowledge claims that cannot be publicly accounted for in rational trerms. As before, these knowledge claims may be absolute or socially constructed. Examples of the subjective dimension in students' talk about science (Quadrant III, Figure 1) are:
(Socially constructed:) Well thats—the social environment will create the biases—its the way a scientist or any person has been brought up that will shape his thoughts, his mind and this will influence. There was—last year we read this essay by David Suzuki. And he cited an example of thinking that I think it was, white man are more intelligent than black men because [they had bigger brains].
(Absolute:) Science is based on fact and the knowledge will not change because of his or her social environment. Man constantly searches for numerical answers. Therefore if he is affected by his surroundings, he will no longer be scientific.
Students who talked about the personal dimensions of religion did so in abolute terms. Thus, a typical statement was "I think truth lies within ourselves, in no one else; you can’t run your life based on a book, you just have to look within yourself." Among the students, there was nobody who felt that the personal experience in the religious-spiritual domain was a matter of construction. However, the teacher's view (stated in the design section) that even one's personal experience is mediated by discursive practices of the community within which one participates is an example of the social construction of personal dimensions of religion.
Previous research showed that scientists simultaneously claimed scientific knowledge to be objectively accountable—thus absolute—and subject to local contingencies (Gilbert & Mulkay, 1984). In order to accomodate this conflicting talk, they employed what Gilbert and Mulkay called the truth-will-out-device (TWOD). Scientists argued that although there are contingencies of social nature that affect their and their peers' work, truth will eventually come out. This discursive device allows scientists to claim the objectivity of their knowledge claim while maintaining influences of contingent (subjective) nature. We found that some of our students used the same device to mediate conflicting claims. The following student statement is an illustration of TWOD:
Presuppositions do, I mean, they do delay scientists finding the absolute truth. Scientists are approximating truth, I think, and then such as more recent, scientists they are getting more and more close, and eventually we could [could know the truth] if the world doesn't end before. An example, see Bohr's model of the atom. He had this model that had orbitals, like the set distances; it had orbitals, and they were all circular. And the mechanical, the quantum mechanical [model], it disproved it. But I mean, it took a long time to disprove it.
hen we included the second discourse domain, religion, we found that there was a new potential conflict in knowledge claims. Students argued that both scientific and religious authorities made claims to absolute knowledge. In some instances, these knowledge claims were contradictory. Brent, for example, was so torn by these contradictions that it interfered with his learning. Others had developed a device similar to the TWOD. We called it the incompatibility device (Figure 1). Accordingly, two knowledge claims were incompatible so that an individual drew either on one or the other realm to deal with controversial issues. For example, Ian talked about institutional science and religion was incompatible and he kept the domains clearly separate in his accounts. When he talked about issues in which both realms might be concerned, Ian usually decided to privilege one realm over the other. On abortion and euthanasia, he used a religious argument to support his pro-life stand. On issues connected with genetic engineering he talked about the potential good emerging form the scientific enterprise. In this separation of the two realms, Ian chose the solution of many scientists.