Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
Why must we continue to build the wal between science and the general public by allowing language to be used differently by the two groups. It is a major impediment to science education at least. It is quite possible for a student to read a paragraph in his or her science text, thinking that he or she understands every word, but finding that the paragraph seems to be gibberish. Often it is because many of the words in the paragraph are ordinary, everyday words that have been used in a different way by the author, so, while the student thinks the words are clear, in fact the meanings have been changed so that the paragraph now makes no sense to someone who has a different idea of what some key words mean.
Having co-taught a course in philosophy of science I can tell you that
the concept of a "fact" is not well defined in science because
scientific "facts" change over time. Some scientists (e.g. Aristotle)
once were absolutely sure the earth was at the center of the universe
(and they had perfectly good reasons to think so). A second problem is
we often teach "facts" that aren't really true (e.g. Newton's laws,
Snell's law, etc.). Just about any set of definitions that attempt to
distinguish between fact, law and theory either can be shown to be
inconsistent or flies against common usage (Kepler's laws are not true
but the theory of relativity is).
So what to do if there are no "true facts" (in some set of absolute
sense) in science? Here are two ideas that seem to work: 1. Often we are
justified in believing certain things to be true, given the evidence we
have at hand (at least until there is counter evidence, at which point
we are justified and perfectly rational in changing our mind). The
overwhelming evidence for evolution and global warming makes it rational
to accept as true or factual. You may decide evolution or climate
change needs more work, you may not believe it in the same way that you
might believe God exists but to be scientific, you really should accept
it as a fact (always continent on the possibility of new data!). 2.
Often it is rational to accept something as "true for the purpose of".
Newton's laws are true for the purpose of building bridges.
Historically science has hardly ever rejected a theory until a better
explanation came along. I seriously doubt that evolution or global
warming will be dumped until a more comprehensive theory is found.