When we teach "Science", we are actually teaching two related things:

1) The scientific method: Observe, hypothesize, test, repeat.

2) The results of the scientific method (which most people think of as science).

Most (all?) of the basic science classes I've taken cover not only the current understanding but also the various historical understandings of the same issue. (For example, I was taught about the evolution of atomic theory from "indivisible", through "plum pudding" and "orbital" to "probabilistic".) This tends to teach that any current theory* is merely our best current understanding of the world. Truth is something to be asymptotically approached, not revealed in its eternal glory.

I think you have to stretch your definition farther than I am willing to stretch mine to conclude that testing hypotheses derived from observation is indistinguishable from religion. The hallmark of religion is faith; that of good science is scepticism. (This opposite mind set seems to be the direct cause for philosophical conflict). The subjects of the two need not especially intersect, though. On the other hand, when a religion makes a testable claim that is shown to be false (rare, these days), the conflict is inevitable. And there's a reason that, "What are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?", is funny.

In the specific case discussed on Right Reason, the subject was "Intelligent Design" (ID). To the extent that the proponents of ID raise interesting questions about evolution theory, what they are doing is scientific. When they postulate a mechanism that does not admit of falsification (how would you falsify ID?) and for which they do not suggest even a possible falsifying test, they are not doing science, they are committing philosophy.

As ptm noted above, we can point at specific, measurable, concrete accomplishments arising directly from science. These accomplishments have (I vehemently claim) dramatically increased the quality of life in our society. For that reason, if no other, science should be strongly supported.

Now, whether that support should come from government or private industry is an open question. Efficiency is not a noted hallmark of government programs, but there is a commons problem in basic research. Specifically, really speculative research is a scattershot, and very long-term, affair, making it difficult to privately fund.

My short answer? "Yes, science deserves 'special (different) treatment'."

* "Theory", as used by a scientist, isn't merely a speculation, it's the current best-fit approximation to all of the available experimental data. When that fit is shown to be poor, any new theory must fit all the current data at least as well as the old theory as well as explaining the problems. (As an example, Newtonian mechanics is a subset of relativistic mechanics specific to low velocities; as velocity approaches 0, the relativistic equations converge to the Newtonian equations.)

Posted by: Doug Sundseth on June 16, 2005 02:01 PM