The Uncertainty of Science

[Eldora]

Recently I've been growing fed up with modern science.

Why?

We are too set in our ways. We are now being raised in a society where questioning is not taught -- instead, we're taught what's already been studied and learned to be "true".

In science classes in schools, we are not allowed to make our own assumptions. There are the "right" answers, and then there are the "wrong" answers to a question. There is no encouragement for students to question what they are learning, to make discoveries of their own, to be curious about the world around them. We are given so-called accurate textbooks, and though they may be accurate, no effort is made to show the students why they are accurate.

Schools in ancient societies encouraged their students to learn not through memorizing "facts", but through asking questions, and challenging what beliefs were originally set forth. This era fostered a race of geniuses, of advances in science and technology previously unheard of, and to this day, that is hard to challenge.

It is my belief that we, as modern inhabitants of the world, have been in an educational rut in the road of discovery for the last decade. We no longer encourage the youth of our society to ask questions. We no longer encourage our youth to challenge discoveries that were made thousands of years ago. We instead brainwash them to find perfection in every single study that has been made and "proved" to be correct. We don't encourage them to make their own in-depth studies of humanity.

Science is largely a questioning based on curiosity. Certainty --even demonstrably false certainty-- kills curiosity, stifles observation, and leads man to defend the answers he has rather than to seek new ones which he may find uncomfortable.

["Psychology: A Scientific Study of Man," Fillmore H. Sanford, Macalester College, (c) 1961 {Page 5, 'Human Organisms'} ]

And our society is certain of everything. There are no attempts to disprove ages-old theories by the youth of today, because we instead choose to defend what we've been taught to believe from the time we first starting learning what this "science" was. We do not encourage the challenging of things any longer.

I can say from my own observations that when I called modern statistics a bunch of unscientifical hogwash, I was pretty much ignored, or worse, there were yet more "statistics" shoved in my face, to disprove what I was trying to say, which was that you cannot simply ask a 'yes or no' question for statistics, without taking into consideration the unique circumstances behind each and every 'yes' or 'no'.

And I was pretty much ignored, because I was challenging a study made by people who are supposed to be older and better than me, who are supposed to understand the world far better than myself. In that single instant, I realized what I read in that psychology book was dead on: Certainty kills curiosity, and therefore, certainty kills science.

Thoughts?

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Schools are going to teach what is already known to a degree so students can have an understanding of something to question. I'll admit, in school there wasn't much leniency in what was and was not taught for this reason, however, the science teachers DID encourage us to ask question, especially our physics teacher. He had the idea that each class if we didn't ask about something relevant, we were either asleep or didn't want to speak up. School and high-school is mostly about teaching the very basics, so teachers may not want to be questioned as they just want to have you learn the content or they don't know how to answer your questions. I've had such teachers who thought questioning them meant they were ineffective teachers so they got butt-hurt, while other teachers didn't know how to begin answering a question so they discouraged questioning. In either case, they lead to what you're describing and I agree with you, not encouraging youth to question modern science is like shooting science in the foot.

In university, first-year is mostly the same as what you're describing. However, third and fourth year is not the same at all because you're not only encouraged, you're required to do research papers on certain topics, point out where studies are lacking or things don't make sense, and question during lectures. Such classes to show why the studies are accurate or inaccurate.

When you mentioned being dismissed for your claims, I can sympathize. Generally, when people challenge a chunk of modern science, they're usually very religious and ignorant to science. Or some people may simply think you trying to rile people up. Studies are routinely challenged, informally and formally. Some studies are devoted to refuting a particular study and the researchers go back and forth doing so.

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by Eldora

Recently I've been growing fed up with modern science.

Your objection is to modern education, not modern science. For some places in the world your objections are accurate, for others they are less so. While you're right that we shouldn't say that we are 100% certain about scientific results, that doesn't mean that a scientist is obligated to listen fully to every disagreement. If the person has good points, then yes, s/he should listen. If the person is clearly wrong, then while it's noble to try and correct them, it's not an obligation. That's the job of teachers, not scientists.

Secondly, you should be careful how you voice this opinion. There are two criticisms of modern education that sound similar, but absolutely need to be distinguished. That teachers would do well to instill curiosity in their students as a method of teaching them scientific facts is certainly a fine proposition. However, the claim that scientific theories are not certain and so should be taught only as "theories" - things that may or may not be true, although this is a very unscientific usage of the word - is an awful proposition. That argument is typically the weapon of creationists. I can't tell myself whether you mean the former or the latter, so you would do well to clarify.

[Eldora]

Originally Posted by Xujhan

That teachers would do well to instill curiosity in their students as a method of teaching them scientific facts is certainly a fine proposition. However, the claim that scientific theories are not certain and so should be taught only as "theories" - things that may or may not be true, although this is a very unscientific usage of the word - is an awful proposition. That argument is typically the weapon of creationists. I can't tell myself whether you mean the former or the latter, so you would do well to clarify.

I was meaning not that we should present them as theories, but that we should give room for the students to question it, and possibly give them the information and items necessary to run their own experiments and see for themselves the truth of some theories.

In my area, we do not do much more than learn vocabulary words. My teacher last year -- though we did have several experiments at the beginning of the year -- did nothing more than give us worksheets, and tell us the answers to our tests for us to memorize. We were not even shown pictures or examples of the things we were trying to learn. The only time we used our textbooks was when we needed to get vocabulary words out of them, or use the periodic table in the back. Otherwise, it was just memorizing answers to her self-made worksheets.

That is not a good education. We weren't learning science. What we were learning was how to memorize facts, with nothing really scientific about the whole thing. It was one of the simplest classes I had ever been in, and there was nothing really to "learn" about it.

I'm saying that our being behind in the world of science begins, at least in part, in the classroom. Without good teachers, it makes it impossible for a child to take interest in what they're learning, and in the end, they don't learn much at all. We're being taught the scientific method, but never really given the chance to see for ourselves that method in action.

And about the "theory" thing. I was meaning it in the sense of the fact that in ancient times, many different "facts" -- that are now considered theories -- were disproved by scientists. Everyone believed them to be very true, but it wasn't until people started standing up and disproving those theories that we found the truths we know today. Yet, if no one had ever tried to disprove them, nothing would have ever been discovered.

This is why I think we should teach things as theories in the classroom, so that there is room for the student to be curious and delve deeper into the subject themselves, and learn for themselves the truth of what they're being taught. Who knows? Maybe one day, a student would come up with a theory that would completely disprove an old theory -- like when someone discovered that the earth wasn't flat, but round.

What would have happened if no one ever tried to disprove what was at that time truth? We would have went for centuries thinking that the earth was flat, just because it was considered truth, and no one wanted to try to disprove what what was obviously a fact.

There needs to be room for a little bit of doubt, so that new generations will keep questioning and doing experiments, and possibly disproving old theories, and therefore bringing us closer to the truth.

If a person has good points, then yes, we should listen. But only to a degree. Good points are, in all honesty, opinions. We should listen to those good points, but then we should take it further, and investigate it ourselves to make sure that the point is correct. For instance, you may be going down the road, and see what you believe to be a blue car. The sun shines on it rather brightly, and the other person insists it's green. To the person putting forward the suggestion, it is they, not the other, who is correct.

However, a forth person might come along and call it a turquoise car. The other two would rethink their points, and they could quite possibly realize that the car is actually turquoise. Therefore, the problem would be solved, and the truth would be found -- but not if the third person hadn't came along with a completely different opinion.

I'm not saying that what is obviously truth -- such as evolution and the origins of the earth -- should be attempted to be disproved, because that is a good point. But there are some things that are still unknown, that we should encourage students to theorize about. Someone might actually come up with a simple but plausible solution to the very things that have perplexed scientists for years.

And don't call me a creationist, because I'm not. I'm just someone who believes that science is questioning and discovering, not accepting and learning. Curiosity is killed by blind acceptance, and therefore, so is science. And that's what is being taught in schools today, at least in my area.

[punkchique]

Just my two cents;

I hear what you're saying and I know what you're talking about but unfortunately, that type of evidence based teaching isn't always feasible in today's classrooms. For one, its expensive and not many public schools can afford that. I was fortunate enough to go to a private school where almost every science lesson was backed up with an experiment and that's the reason why I fell in love with physics.

However, while these principles may not be held in lower level education, I think that they are definitely being held in most reputable institutions of higher learning.

[ReluctantPegasister]

Usually we are taught things that are already proven. There's no reason for everyone to have to make telescopes and discover that the earth goes around the sun when one could simply learn this fact in a class room.

I am high school and primarily my science classes reinforce what is most important about today's science: the scientific method. Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge

If that is not being taught to you then you have a right to complain. Otherwise, I don't quite understand the problem.