ISEN-ASTC-L is a service of the Association of Science-Technology Centers
Incorporated, a worldwide network of science museums and related institutions.
*****************************************************************************

On Mar 26, 2005, at 11:02 PM, David Smith wrote:

> ISEN-ASTC-L is a service of the Association of Science-Technology  
> Centers
> Incorporated, a worldwide network of science museums and related  
> institutions.
> *********************************************************************** 
> ******
>
> Thanks for the comments, Eric.  I agree that we should not change the
> meaning of the word science, but I am concerned about the attitudes I  
> see in
> some of the posts on this topic.  I am a hard core scientist (Ph.D  
> from a
> Research I institution, post-doc, peer-reviewed publications, tenured  
> in a
> university science department, the whole bit, before I found something
> really interesting and challenging to do),

>  but I do not see any reason to
> think that simply telling people more often, more clearly, or more
> forcefully about the nature of science or about the criteria for  
> accepting
> knowledge as scientific will do anything but alienate people.

There is a HUGE reason to talk more often, more clearly and more  
forcefully about the nature of science.  Science IS getting bent all  
the time now- facts altered or (much more frequently) facts ignored, to  
make it fit preconceived notions.  Evolution is just one example of  
this.  By going "easy" because a certain group of people have religious  
beliefs that for them outweigh the presently known facts of science is  
exactly the wrong response, the wrong message about science.  Science  
is reliable knowledge about our world.  Something is science precisely  
because it fits all the known facts.   if it doesn't fit the facts it  
is not science.  We can't alter facts for whatever reason reason we  
want, even religious ones.


> Most people
> accept some of scientists' ideas about how the world works and reject
> others, especially those that conflict with other beliefs that they  
> hold
> more strongly and find more valuable.
And that is exactly the problem, a problem that we as science centers  
have a responsibility to illuminate to our pubic: We can't pick and  
choose which science to reject.
If we say it is OK to reject some science because of your personal  
beliefs IT IS NO LONGER SCIENCE.  It stops being science the moment you  
base it on anything but facts.

The message many people get from polls on how many people believe  
evolution is that science can be chosen by majority rule.

Science is not a democracy.  We don't get to choose what is the leading  
science, the science that fits all the known facts completely.  Science  
can only be rejected on the basis of  new factual information proving a  
previously held science theory is no longer correct.   That is why we  
call EVERYTHING in science science theory,  so that at any time in the  
future, when something new becomes known, becomes accepted as science  
(fits all the facts) and it contradicts a previously held theory, the  
previously held theory can be torn down.  While we call them theories  
they are based on all the known facts.  Meeting all the known facts,  
they themselves can be used as facts.  For all intents and purposes  
science theories are facts.  Science builds on science, on the  
presently leading theories.  When we teach biology,  we rely on the  
theory of evolution.

When a science theory is presented for consideration it goes through a  
process that has many of the appearances of democracy.  The science  
community seemingly votes on it, saying that's a good theory or that's  
a bad theory. they can  Unlike democracy, one person can come up with a  
fact that can knock it down.  Whoever wants to can speak about it and  
point out problems where it doesn't fit the facts known.   If it  
doesn't fit the known facts, it is rejected, it isn't science.     
Science builds on science.
If the present facts known that tore down a previously submitted theory  
  are themselves found to be no longer true, the previously rejected  
theory can come back into play but only if it fits all the facts.

Evolution has gone through this process and has not been torn down yet.  
  It is still the leading science theory (more precisely, theories since  
there is much to what we call evolution).  It has withstood all of the  
challenges that the multiple theories of creationism have raised.  It  
has been found that evolution still fits all the facts and that  
creationism does not.



>
> I'm not concerned about what science centers present - we should be  
> places
> that present the findings of scientific research - I am concerned  
> about how
> we present it.
In an age where we are using up the resources that we need to live we  
need true science more than ever.   All of us, including you, David,  
have to care, have to be concerned with what science centers present,   
that it first be true, and that it second be relevant to our present  
needs of society.


>  If science centers present science as an all or nothing
> package, or as a "we know best, you listen to us" package, then we risk
> alienating a large segment of our potential audience.

Science IS an all or nothing package. It is either true or it isn't  
science.

Risking alienating a large segment of our potential audience is a  
problem, and that is precisely why I originally called for us, here in  
this forum for science centers, to craft a message that doesn't just  
say evolution is and there is nothing you can do about it, but that  
evolution is the leading science theory, based on the facts as we  
presently know them.   All of us are not only free to try and prove it  
wrong, but are invited to do so, BECAUSE THAT IS THE PROCESS OF  
SCIENCE.

Wavering, blinking, backing down on evolution, destroys us as an  
information source.

I just got martin Fisher's post.  Hooray for Ft. Worth!

>  We should instead be
> inviting the public to participate in sense-making and in the  
> construction
> of explanations.
I agree, David, that sense-making and the construction of explanations  
is central to what we need to present.  The questions "How does this  
make sense?" and   "Is it constructed of known science facts? should  
even be more explicit in all that we do.

>  But if we are to do that, we must really accept that not
> everyone will make sense of their experience in the way that we do.

We are science centers.  We may be informal but we need to teach  
science or at the very least, not be conveying messages that compromise  
science.
Clifford Wagner
[log in to unmask]

***********************************************************************
More information about the Informal Science Education Network and the
Association of Science-Technology Centers may be found at http://www.astc.org.
To remove your e-mail address from the ISEN-ASTC-L list, send the
message  SIGNOFF ISEN-ASTC-L in the BODY of a message to
[log in to unmask]