reinaness recently wrote:

I have often been frustrated with the scientific process needing to know WHY something works before it can recognize that it DOES WORK. Predicting behavior is useful without the need for understanding it. Although ideally we do both. Anyway I thought it was interesting. I wish more people knew more about what people actually do instead of what the *should* do. We would be much more understanding of each other.

I can sympathize with that quote -- in fact, I've said similar things in the past. I don't think it's correct, but I'm curious as to why that view is so persistent. It's been my general observation that people tend to have a pretty negative opinion of the concept of science. However, pretty much everyone I know who's held that attitude and then voluntarily taken a science course has wound up being fascinated by the subject, whether it's astronomy, geology, chemistry, or sociology. What's odd is that, after that, some of these people still hold a negative view of science -- except for the particular area of it that they've studied.

Science isn't perfect, but it's relatively unique in that it relentlessly strives to strip away our preconceptions and biases. Sometimes it works better then others, but it's always at it, peeling away our delusions and handwaving and bullshit and slowly moving us closer and closer to truth... and a lot of that truth is damn interesting or damn beautiful or, often, both. For example, I'm currently taking an introductory stellar astronomy class. In just a couple of months I've learned:

• How to measure the distance to the moon, and even to other stars (this can be done without a telescope, using only some basic observation and math.)


• How to weigh planets and stars.


• How stars are born, how they evolve, and how they die. And how to tell how far a particular cluster of stars is along that path.


• What's at the center of galaxies, and the motion of galaxies.


• Why people believe that the big bang happened (the evidence is pretty compelling.)


• How to calculate the age of the universe.

... And it's beautiful. Gorgeous, full-color photographs of the most amazing things. Yeah, it's analytical, but in almost a humbling way. This is going to sound a little corny, but there've been times that I had to stop studying because my eyes were watering over. Astronomy is perhaps a particularly romantic science, but every science that I've seen has this kind of ability to fascinate.

There's a big problem, I think, in communicating that fundamental aspect of science. Often people perceive it as some kind of dry, inaccessible, dehumanizing magic, and I'm not entirely sure why. Is it because of human abuses -- everything from Nazis to drug companies? Is it because science sometimes says no to things we wish were true? Is it because people feel like science can't incorporate or explain their experiences? Is it because people feel like science has incorporated or explained their experiences? Is it because mandatory science classes taught by uninspired teachers have filled people with a sense of apathy or personal insecurity? Is it because science is seen as being establishment, and is therefore viewed in the same light as, say, the DMV? Is it because of ego, or a need to be iconoclastic?

To be clear, I'm not saying that there aren't legitimate criticisms of science. I'm saying that there seems to be a lot of knee-jerk antipathy towards science, that being anti-science is even fashionable in some circles, and I'm curious as to why that is. What do you think?