Science is what it is, no more, no less

Most in the scientific community have responded with relief over the Dover ruling. However, a professor of philosphy has written an interesting response to the ruling...which I disagree with wholeheartedly, hence this long post.

In his piece, Professor George argues that there is no strict dichotomy between science and non-science. He gives three points that I'm contesting:

1) "Science employs the scientific method. No, there's no such method: Doing science is not like baking a cake."

Actually, yes there is. As any science student knows, the general scientific method that ALL science experiments use are based on 3 main principles: hypothesis, experimentation and observation of the results. If the observations follow the hypothesis, then it leads to a scientific theory that holds for now but could be disproved in the future. The other requirement is that the experiment is repeatable by others (one reason why we don't have cold fusion, or clone humans). If your claim doesn't meet these requirements, it's not a valid scientific inquiry. Thus, using his analogy, just as there are many different recipes to bake a cake, the general principle of how to bake a cake still holds. So yes, there is such a thing as a scientific method.

2) "Science can be proved on the basis of observable data. No, general theories about the natural world can't be proved at all. Our theories make claims that go beyond the finite amount of data that we've collected. There's no way such extrapolations from the evidence can be proved to be correct."

First off, you can't prove "Science." It's not a thing TO BE proved. I'll attribute that to...sloppy writing. As scientists, our theories can never prove til the end of time that something is what it is. Scientific inquiries only state that based on the available data and knowledge and experimentation, X holds. If Y, also based on scientific inquiry, comes and contradicts X, then X no longer holds and we have to This is why there is such a push to try to reconcile general relativity with quantum physics because one is contradicting the other in different areas. Thus, general relativity is still being used at a macroscopic level to explain gravity because no other explanation works but isn't used when studying quantum events. Perhaps scientists have done a poor job to convey that, but it doesn't mean we should scrap the whole notion of scientific inquiry altogether.

3) "Science can be disproved, or falsified, on the basis of observable data. No, for it's always possible to protect a theory from an apparently confuting observation. Theories are never tested in isolation but only in conjunction with many other extra-theoretical assumptions (about the equipment being used, about ambient conditions, about experimenter error, etc.). It's always possible to lay the blame for the confutation at the door of one of these assumptions, thereby leaving one's theory in the clear. And so forth."

Scientists aren't trying to lay the 'blame' on the extra assumptions to protect one's theory (well, they shouldn't). However, we want to be able to consider as many possibilities as possible about why such an event occurred as it did. We want other scientists to show that these extra assumptions either do or do not affect our results and thus either validate or refute our theory. If there are indeed that many caveats, then it would never be used as a general explanation for something until they are explained away using scientific inquiry

At this point, it seems like this professor has a poor notion of science that any undergrad science student could refute his points. But it gets better. He goes on to argue that astrology or parapsychology should be accepted as 'science' (DAMN! Brought my crystal ball into my biology exam and my dissection kit into my astrology class...) and instead teaching 'science' should be based on the 'best science':

"Intelligent design shouldn't be taught in the science classroom any more than Ptolemaic astronomy and for exactly the same reason: They are both poor accounts of the phenomena they seek to explain and both much improved upon by other available theories."

My question are, what standard does one judge what best and poor science are? And who gets to be the judge? Since he's robbed the authority of the scientific community to decide whether a theory was reached using accepted scientific methods, what are the new means then? He doesn't provide an answer to that.

Two more quotes and that's it:

"We should be less proprietorial about the unhelpful moniker "science" but insist that only the best science be taught in our schools."

...so the moniker 'science' is unhelpful, but it's ok that he uses 'best science'? I'm confused.

"If we're to be honest, either we should find alternatives to the courts to protect our curricula from bad science, or we should start arguing in court that the separation of church and state would be violated by intelligent design's injection into the science curriculum on account of its predominantly religious motivation." (emphasis mine)

Let me answer the emphasized part with Judge Jones' actual ruling:

"To briefly reiterate, we first note that since ID is not science, the conclusion is inescapable that the only real effect of the ID Policy is the advancement of religion" (pp. 133-134)

"The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause...We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." (p. 136).

I didn't even have to read the entire ruling but skim the Judge's conclusion to find this. Did Prof. George even read the ruling or do ANY research? I'm an amateur blogger at best and I found this out in five minutes.

There's my response. I'll be awaiting yours...if you're willing to wade through all of this.