The Nature of Science
I saw an RPI Players production of Inherit the Wind in 1989. Oh, ho, ho, thought I. Look at how backwards we were as recently as 1925 for the Scopes Monkey Trial to have been a hard-fought battle.
Back in May, there was some fuss over Intelligent Design proponents trying to get the Kansas Board of Education to change its definition of science
Advocates of “intelligent design” are pushing the board to reject a definition limiting science to natural explanations for what’s observed in the world. Instead, they want to define it as “a systematic method of continuing investigation,” without specifying what kind of answer is being sought. The definition would appear in the introduction to the state’s science standards.
I actually had to admire the chutzpah of it.
But not the intent. And they’ve won.
The Nature of Science, 2001 (large PDF):
Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us. Science does so through the use of observation, experimentation, and logical argument while maintaining strict empirical standards and healthy skepticism. Scientific explanations are built on observations, hypotheses, and theories. A hypothesis is a testable statement about the natural world that can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate observations, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
The Nature of Science, revised (another one):
Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation that uses observations, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena. Science does so while maintaining strict empirical standards and healthy skepticism. Scientific explanations are built on observations, hypotheses, and theories. A hypothesis is a testable statement about the natural world that can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate observations, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
Well, hey, that doesn’t sound so bad, right? We’ve even still got (elsewhere) “Science studies natural phenomena by formulating explanations that can be tested against the natural world.” And “Scientific explanations are consistent with experimental and/or observational data and testable by scientists through additional experimentation and/or observation.”
But they’ll be next. The Right is once again fighting to control the language. ‘cause when you’ve got that, you’ve already won — the rest is just cleanup.
Comments