My little contretemps with Iain over the difference between theory and fact, and the nature of epistemology in general, inspires a rant^H^H^H^Hdisquisition on the nature of science and how it's taught (or not).

Several years ago (probably more than a decade), I saw a special on my local affiliate of the Public Broadcasting System (so named because that's who pays for it--not, in a manner similar to National "Public" Radio, because it's necessarily of any particular benefit to them) called something like "The National Science Quiz."

It consisted of a bunch of multiple-guess questions that were in fact, facts, as opposed to theories. For example, they asked something like, "How many hairs, on average, are on a square inch of the human head?"

I threw something (it's been too long to remember what, and being a skinflint, and not one to destroy a television that I will have to pay to replace, I'm sure that it was relatively soft) at the TV.

"This is not science!" I yelled at it, ineffectually. "Very few scientists would know the answer to that question (though they would know where to look it up, if it had any relevance to a scientific inquiry). Not only is this not science, but it's the reason that many people get turned off to science, and it's why very few people understand anything about science!"

Science is not a compendium of "facts." Science is about how we turn unrelated, boring facts into useful knowledge. Science is a method, not an encyclopedia. That's why I get upset when someone says that "evolution is a fact." Not just because it's untrue, but because it misses the point entirely.

Science is a means of inquiry. It cannot be learned by simply memorizing a set of dry unconnected facts, but that's what is implied by the "science quiz" described above, and much of what passes for science education in primary schools (and even more frighteningly, in many colleges and universities).

When I was in college, physics was my favorite subject.

Why?

Because I have a lousy memory (one, but by no means the only, reason that I never seriously considered going into medicine). Because I could pass the tests without memorizing a vast compendium of "facts," (which I couldn't manage in biology, or even chemistry, which I still don't consider a true science, but it may become when physical chemistry reaches a sufficient degree of sophistication and maturity--perhaps it already has in the intervening decades). I could pass the tests by simply taking the few basic laws, and applying the basic rules of logic and mathematics to them, even rederiving more advanced laws if necessary, rather than having to memorize them.

What's my point?

Learning physics wasn't about remembering what the atomic weight of a given element was, or how many wombats lived in a given state of Australia at a given point in time. Learning physics was about learning some basic principles, and applying them to more general problems. That's what all science should be about.

But instead science, when it's taught at all (often by primary-school teachers who don't understand it themselves), is taught as a body of knowledge, a set of known facts, rather than as a method of inquiry. The emphasis is not on thinking, but on memorization. Science, properly taught, opens the mind to a vast array of topics, even beyond science. Science, as it's generally taught, is pure drudgery. It's little wonder that most kids are turned off to the subject by the time they enter high school.

It's also little wonder that the phrase, "it's only a theory" has such power when attacking evolution. After all, science is about facts, right? And if evolution is "only a theory," then it's not a fact, and we need not believe it.

So those defending evolution must take one of two tacks--to claim (mistakenly, as occurred on the web site that Iain cited) that evolution is a "fact," or to take the more difficult, but in the long run, much more valuable road, by performing a rectification of names. That is why I kill so many electrons to make this point, in multiple posts.

I just hope that my struggle doesn't long remain a lonely one.

As a practicing scientist (although in biology, which doesn't really count, right? :)), I applaud your effort to clarify the nature of the scientific method, and agree completely that this method, not bare facts, is what is important in the scientific enterprise. One point of contention, and one that is probably only important to pedants like me (and you, most likely), is the difference between the Theory of Evolution and the fact(s) of evolution. The Theory of Evolution is a sweeping framework that attempts to explain how and, to some limited extent, why, species come into being, go extinct, and change. The fact(s) of evolution (notice the case change) are the nuts and bolts events that occur within organisms and populations that are measurable quantities. The canonical example is the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria. An introductory microbiology course will often contain an experiment designed to produce an evolution of sorts within a population. Agar plates (food for bacteria in a lab) is made containing a gradient of antibiotic. The bacteria are placed on this gradient, and they grow, up to a point where the antibiotic is too strong. If you take the bacteria from that edge and repeat the experiment, the edge will move farther up the gradient, and in a matter of a few repetitions, the plate will be covered with bacteria, a population resistant to the antibiotic in question. This is an example of evolution (the fact). The Theory of Evolution can explain how, and to some extent why, this occurs. This is an example of why we all need to be careful about our syntax and semantics, but hopefully our misunderstandings, when civilly discussed, lead to greater knowledge for all (boy, that sounds pompous!! but you know what I mean).

The practice of science involves, as you aptly put it, the tying together of boring facts into useful knowledge. The opponents of Evolution ignore the facts of evolution in their fight, and usually fall back on a "God of the Gaps" argument (you don't know how x happens, so x is caused by God). It is largely fruitless to have this argument, because as Godel showed, there will be gaps in any logically consistent system (yes, I know he was talking about mathematics, but when we model in mathematical terms, we eventually reduce the question to a set of hideously complex equations). Therefore, there will always be space for "God", for those who need him. This rant is getting long, so I will stop, and start using my own blog!!

The "it's only a theory" argument is based on a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "theory".

It is particularly disarming to agree with a challenger: "Yes, the theory of evolution is indeed only a theory. So is the classical theory of electrodynamics, quantum theory, and the rest. Each current theory is simply a falsifiable hypothesis that best explains the observed phenomena. If you have a falsifiable hypothesis that accounts for the origin of species than better than evolution, please present it."

Since most (honest) religious believers will readily admit that religious faith is not a falsifiable hypothesis, any further debate must indeed be about the science, and not about religious belief.

Unfortunately, not all religious believers admit that religious faith is not falsifiable, particularly those who inveigh against the theory of evolution.

Some interesting comments on the use and evolution of Darwinism at: http://junkyardblog.blogspot.com/

>Some interesting comments on the use and evolution of Darwinism at: http://junkyardblog.blogspot.com/

Yes, thanks--I saw that a couple days ago and had an email discussion with Bryan about it.

What a pleasure it is to see someone say this. Science is the procedure by which we learn how things work. A teacher who doesn't know this can't possibly teach it. It seems so obvious -- but apparently not to educational administrators.

any science is rarely completely valid. However all religions are equally valid