\magnification=\magstep1
\noindent {\it Mary Arnold -- Faith and the Everyday Practice of Science}
\bigskip
Mary, this is a very good start on an essay concerning Grinnell's ideas about complementarity of science and
religion.  However, I don't think you have really ``nailed'' a description of the differences between the two
fields, at least according to common thinking (what Grinnell is arguing {\it against}). Your first paragraph
points to the distinction between pragmatic concerns and theoretical concerns.  But that is not so clear-cut
(see comment 1 below).  Your second paragraph says the fundamental conflict between science and religion is in
how they draw conclusions.  There certainly is a difference there, but is that the most central difference?  It
might be good to start a revised version of this (if you decide to write one) by addressing another question:
What are the ultimate goals of science and religion, and how are they different (and/or similar)?
\bigskip
\noindent {\it Specific Comments}
\bigskip
\item{1.}  It sounds as though you are equating science with the pragmatic and religious with the theoretical
    here.  But I would say that science and mathematics certainly have a theoretical side as well as a pragmatic
    side.  So the difference between science and religion is not only the difference between pragmatic and
    theoretical concerns. \item{2.}  {\it Everyday Practice of Science} is a rather unclassifiable book, so it
    could be called ``novel,'' meaning new or unusual. I'm guessing that is what you were thinking here.  But
    when I read this the first time, it seemed that you were calling the book a work of fiction.  It would be
    better to rewrite this to eliminate the possible confusion. \item{3.}  I think it would be better to say
    here that {\it courts held that the introduction of creationist science curricula was a breach of the
    separation of church and state}.  This is a somewhat controversial legal issue.  Your flat statement makes
    it sound too cut and dried.  Also, it's interesting to consider the way creationism is often presented as a
    {\it ``scientific''} theory and an alternative to Darwinian evolution.  Why do you suppose the supporters of
    creationism try to do that? \item{4.}  This is still a part of an expression of Grinnell's opinion. It would
    be good to make that clearer because there are certainly lots of scientists who would disagree violently
    with this statement. \item{5.}  I am not sure what you meant by this.  Do you mean science cannot {\it
    explain} the human feelings of a connection to the divine?? \item{6.}  This idea that embracing
    complementarity could lead to mutual respect and acceptance between religious and scientific viewpoints is a
    very good one.  You could say more about that!
\bigskip
\vfill\eject \noindent {\it Amanda Cabrera -- One Natural World, Two Visions}
\bigskip
I got your email message accompanying the paper, and I agree that this is still somewhat rough and unfinished.
I hope you will have the time to think over the following comments and resubmit a revised version of the paper.
\bigskip
\noindent {\it Specific Comments}
\bigskip
\item{1.}  Saying ``integrated'' here sounds a little strange. Many scientists might say that when religious
    concerns impact how science is taught and practiced, then it is more an {\it intrusion} than an {\it
    integration}.  (The primary meaning of {\it integration} is {\it inclusion or mixing} in a more neutral
    way.)  Your second sentence is making a very different point (following Grinnell).  So this probably
    deserves to be expanded and explained a bit more -- you need to give the reader a clue that you will be
    dealing with two very different things. \item{2.}  The people who have been agitating for ``creationist
    science'' in schools are primarily fundamentalist Protestants. In recent times at least, the Catholic Church
    has been much less prone to that sort of literal interpretation of Scripture and much more open to modern
    geological theories of the age of the Earth and biological theories of evolution.  So I think this sentence
    is somewhat inaccurate. \item{3.}  Grinnell's idea of ``intelligible design'' is also a very good point to
    spend more time on.  The idea here is the feeling (which comes down to a form of faith, for Grinnell at
    least) that there are underlying patterns in Nature that humans are able to understand. \item{4.}  I don't
    really see the connection between what you are saying about Biblical literalism and Grinnell's
    complementarity here.  This is something you probably want to rethink. \item{5.}  Is it {\it faith} that is
    expressed through the reasoning of where to go on the bicycle?  Isn't this sort of reasoning more closely
    related to ethics or morality?  Aren't those different from {\it faith}? (That is, religion also includes
    ethical and moral statements of what we {\it should do}.) \item{6.}  Could you say more about why you think
    Grinnell's dabbling in philosophy is dangerous here?  Are you saying he is not qualified to offer those
    opinions because he is ``only'' a scientist?
\bigskip
\vfill\eject \noindent {\it Stephanie Craig -- The Battle Between Effect and Passion}
\bigskip
I like your first draft paper very much -- it has a number of good points and it strikes a good balance between
your personal experience and the ideas expressed by Grinnell in his book.   There are a few places where you had
typos or minor slips.  Also there were a few examples of what I would call overly colloquial language --
``zapping the life out of'' (page 1) in particular.
\bigskip
\noindent {\it Specific Comments}
\bigskip
\item{1.}  I gather that a lot of students feel the way you describe here (that is, that having to explain a
    solution takes the fun of out finding the solution).  Could you say more about why you have that feeling?  I
    don't really understand that myself, since I always think that the best way to make sure you really
    understand something is to try to explain it to someone else.  Any gaps in one's thinking become painfully
    clear then, either because of the uncomprehending stares that you get from one's audience, or from the
    feeling of ``hand-waving'' that comes from trying to dance around a point that is not entirely nailed down.
    \item{2.}  I like this example very much -- I think it is exactly right! \item{3.}  You are also correct
    that statistics is often used in the way you describe -- as a way to summarize a large collection of
    information and make it easier to deal with. You seem to be saying that this is like the process of writing
    a short and to the point research article without any of the distracting extra information that might have
    been developed along the way to the final results.  Am I catching your point here, or did you mean something
    different? Also, aren't there times when you might {\it discover} new things in the process (patterns that
    were not apparent in the whole data set at the start).  That is, couldn't working with the statistics be
    part of the discovery process, in addition to or rather than the credibility process? \vfill\eject \noindent
    {\it Josh Hauser -- Practice of Science and Mathematics}
\bigskip
Your first paragraph was a little rough (see the suggested corrections marked on the paper).   But after you got
started, your writing improved quite a bit.  One suggestion -- ``kids'' sounds too informal for this kind of
writing. What you really mean is ``students'' so say it that way.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying here, and you present your points pretty well.
\bigskip
\noindent {\it Specific Comments}
\bigskip
\item{1.}  This is a very important point.   This kind of training in logical thinking and mental discipline is
    also one of the traditional reasons for including mathematics in school curricula.  This goes all the way
    back to the ancient Greeks. \item{2.}  I'm not sure it's really accurate to say that there is ``much room
    for extra information'' in research articles. After all, textbooks are usually hundreds of pages long, but
    articles are only rarely longer than 20 or 30 pages.  There is a difference too in the level of knowledge
    assumed of the readers. In research articles, the audience is the community of experts in a field, so not
    all of the background needs to be filled in. \item{3.}  I'm not sure I follow what you are saying here. It
    is not that common, I think, for later articles to re-work the data from earlier ones.  So I don't think
    ``taking the results from a previous experiment in order to find different patterns and characteristics''
    happens that often (at least not in the parts of science I know the most about).  Instead, people might try
    to reproduce other scientists' results by redoing the experiments in a different way and generating new data
    of their own. \vfill\eject \noindent {\it Paige Carr -- Faith in Religion and Science of the Natural World}
\bigskip
Your essay is well-structured and presents a good synthesis of Grinnell's ideas about the relation between
faith, science and religion.  I only have a few small corrections and comments.
\bigskip
\noindent {\it Specific Comments}
\bigskip
\item{1.}  You say that ``without religion, there would be no point in discovering the reason why things in life
    work.''  Does Grinnell say anything like that?  Or is this a personal opinion of your own? It would be good
    to say more about this and try to justify it, because I think this is a statement that many people might
    disagree with.  Isn't it possible for an atheist to be a scientist and want to understand how nature works?
    Can't an atheist be a good, moral person and be concerned with the welfare of others?  Is religion the {\it
    only} source of moral and ethical values that provide the basis for a good life? \item{2.}  Toward the end
    of the essay when you are discussing Grinnell's idea of {\it complementarity}, there are a few instances
    where you are misusing the word.  This is a noun -- the property of being complementary.  The adjective form
    is {\it complementary}. \vfill\eject
\noindent
{\it Nick Foster -- (no title)}
\bigskip
Your view of three stages in the process of the development of 
scientific truths -- the notebook stage, the article stage, and 
the textbook stage -- has a lot of truth to it.  Still, I think
you could say more about {\it why} the later stages in the process look
so different from the notebook stage.   See the comments below for 
some ideas.  Your writing is generally very good, although 
there are a few cases where I think your spell-checker and/or
your proof-reading may have
let you down(!)  Also, {\it notebook} and {\it textbook} are
single words.  
\bigskip
\noindent
{\it Specific Comments}
\bigskip
\item{1.}  I think it might be a slight overstatement to 
say that ``usually'' the final result of a scientific
investigation ``is in no way related to what [the scientist]
originally intended to discover.''  Grinnell was saying
that this happens more often than one might think if one
believes the textbook picture of the ``scientific method.''
But there are times too when scientists do succeed in finding
what they are looking for!
\item{2.}  I think it's important to realize that  
bias can also come into the choice of questions
that the scientist thinks are important or that he
or she decides to investigate.  For example, the meeting I was at
two weeks ago was the national convention of a group
called SACNAS (Society for the Advancement of Chicanos
and Native Americans in Science).  One of the plenary
sessions was a pretty interesting discussion
about the ways modern ``evidence-based''
medicine can learn things about treating Native American
patients from traditional tribal
healers.  Those questions probably would not even occur
to doctors who had no experience with Native American
cultures.
\item{3.}  Careful -- a scientist's notebooks are almost
never published.  They are retained to provide back-up
if questions arise concerning the results the scientists
claims to have found.  But usually they are not 
shared directly with other scientists.  
\item{4.}  Here's a question to think about.  Are all the
misadventures and false starts that a scientist may have
had on the way to discovery even {\it relevant} to the
credibility process?  Might they even be a distraction
from the {\it real issue} of determining whether the
results are credible?  Could that explain the difference
in the ways the different stages are presented?
\item{5.}  This sentence does not read correctly.
I think you might have left out a part of what you 
meant to say, although what you intended is pretty clear
from the context.  What does this say about the 
textbook format as a learning tool, though?  If
better-quality learning happens through discovery, shouldn't
teachers try to include more of that kind of experience
in students' education?
\vfill\eject
\noindent
{\it Brandon Nunn -- Frederick Grinnell's Everyday Practice of Science}
\bigskip
This is, for the most part, a very good essay on Grinnell's ideas 
about how scientific practice differs from the textbook picture
of the ``scientific method.''  The one criticism I have is that
the last page or so seems to just rehash points you have made previously.
You don't bring things to a strong conclusion.  There are some
things you could add or expand earlier in the paper, though, so
the length should not be an issue if you want to do a revision.
See the specific comments below for some ideas on this.
\bigskip
\noindent
{\it Specific Comments}
\bigskip
\item{1.}  Actually, in mathematics, the proof of a statement is
supposed to be a way to convince others that the statement is true.
If you saw the proofs (and not just worked out examples, procedures
to follow, and so forth) then your teachers probably thought that
they were showing you why those facts were true(!)
\item{2.}  I think there are really two points here.  One is
that most experiments just don't work at all.  The lab animals
die, or the meter doesn't work, or the computer was misprogrammed, etc.
Then sometimes, there are unexpected results (the ``serendipity'' 
idea).  
\item{3.} This high school chemistry course sounds like it
was a great experience.  You must have had a very dedicated,
knowledgable, and confident teacher!
\item{4.}  I think Grinnell would say that this effect is 
even more pronounced on the discovery side.  Scientists don't
want to make extravagant claims that are later proved to 
be false because that would hurt their reputations even more.
\item{5.}  You introduce the idea of {\it intersubjectivity}
here without really explaining what Grinnell means by this
term.  This could be expanded quite a bit.  Don't assume
the reader knows what Grinnell has said about this.
\item{6.}  I agree that statistics could be used to discover
patterns.  Couldn't those techniques also be used to 
demonstrate to others that a pattern observed more
intuitively are ``really there?''
\vfill\eject
\vfill\eject
\end
