Endless mysteries lurk in the depths of space. To pare the list down to eight—now, there’s a challenge

“Science is a systematic and logical approach to discovering how things in the universe work. It is derived from the Latin word “scientia,” which translates to knowledge. Unlike the arts, science aims for measurable results through testing and analysis. Science is based on fact, not opinion or preferences. The process of science is designed to challenge ideas through research. It is not meant to prove theories, but rule out alternative explanations until a likely conclusion is reached.”

This definition, followed by a step-by-step “recipe” for the Scientific Method, reveals none of the complexities of real-world science.  For instance, not all scientists  follow this method, if indeed any do.  Different fields of science use different methods.  It overlooks tacit knowledge, hunches and social pressures that short-circuit the method.  It mentions nothing of the scientific culture or consensus, Kuhn’s paradigms and scientific revolutions.  It conflates scientific discovery with scientific understanding, yet it distinguishes facts from theories as if facts cannot be theory-laden. 

• This definition, followed by a step-by-step “recipe” for the Scientific Method, reveals none of the complexities of real-world science.  For instance, not all scientists  follow this method, if indeed any do.  Different fields of science use different methods.  It overlooks tacit knowledge, hunches and social pressures that short-circuit the method.  It mentions nothing of the scientific culture or consensus, Kuhn’s paradigms and scientific revolutions.  It conflates scientific discovery with scientific understanding, yet it distinguishes facts from theories as if facts cannot be theory-laden. 

It ignores profound differences between operational sciences (which can be replicated) and origins sciences (which cannot, but rely on inference).  And it creates an either-or fallacy that segregates “science” from all other forms of inquiry, some of which are not only just as systematic and logical, but may be even more measurable, reliable, and amenable to knowledge.  Those are just a few of the questions that arise from the Live Science article.

• It ignores profound differences between operational sciences (which can be replicated) and origins sciences (which cannot, but rely on inference).  And it creates an either-or fallacy that segregates “science” from all other forms of inquiry, some of which are not only just as systematic and logical, but may be even more measurable, reliable, and amenable to knowledge.  Those are just a few of the questions that arise from the Live Science article.

Even the article’s ending section, “brief history of science,” overlooks the fact that what was considered “knowledge” in the past is often considered foolishness today.  Almost everything that was believed about the universe, the earth and life back in 1900 has been debunked.  We have no guarantee, therefore, that scientists of the future will not look on today’s “scientific” beliefs as foolishness.  The phrase “now we know” is often the prelude to collapse (for an interesting example from geology, read a quote posted by Uncommon Descent).

• Even the article’s ending section, “brief history of science,” overlooks the fact that what was considered “knowledge” in the past is often considered foolishness today.  Almost everything that was believed about the universe, the earth and life back in 1900 has been debunked.  We have no guarantee, therefore, that scientists of the future will not look on today’s “scientific” beliefs as foolishness.  The phrase “now we know” is often the prelude to collapse (for an interesting example from geology, read a quote posted by Uncommon Descent).

Britt and Zimmermann also neglected to address how scientific knowledge is manufactured.  There was nothing about peer review, for instance.  Yet even Nature this past week acknowledged that a revolution is underway in peer review with new internet resources that may render traditional print journals obsolete.  On June 12, Richard van Noorden explored some of the radical new initiatives like PeerJ (an outgrowth of the inventors of PLoS ONE) that will allow scientists to pay one price for unlimited online publishing.  Notice his explosive metaphor:

• Britt and Zimmermann also neglected to address how scientific knowledge is manufactured.  There was nothing about peer review, for instance.  Yet even Nature this past week acknowledged that a revolution is underway in peer review with new internet resources that may render traditional print journals obsolete.  On June 12, Richard van Noorden explored some of the radical new initiatives like PeerJ (an outgrowth of the inventors of PLoS ONE) that will allow scientists to pay one price for unlimited online publishing.  Notice his explosive metaphor:

“PeerJ is just one of a flurry of experiments, encouraged in part by the gathering momentum of open access, that might shape the future of research publishing. “We are seeing a Cambrian explosion of experiments with new publishing models. It’s going to be an interesting period for the next few years,” says Binfield.

• “PeerJ is just one of a flurry of experiments, encouraged in part by the gathering momentum of open access, that might shape the future of research publishing. “We are seeing a Cambrian explosion of experiments with new publishing models. It’s going to be an interesting period for the next few years,” says Binfield.

• The metaphor implies no clear connection between the old way and several radical new ways of publication.  This example shows that one aspect of the “scientific method,” peer review, is undergoing a dramatic change before our eyes after decades — even centuries — of standard operating procedure.