I do not doubt Mano Singham's good intentions, nor his desire to provide
the best science instruction. But his assumptions contain major flaws that
run counter to science.

Science does not operate through belief but through proof, experimental
and mathematical. Once proof has been achieved, belief becomes irrelevant.
Therefore, it is not necessary to "achieve belief" or to use propaganda
for that purpose. What is important is to teach the fundamentals of the
scientific method. Belief is antithetical to the scientific search for
evidence. The believer is not concerned with evidence except as it
reinforces the belief. The choice between believing in science and
believing in pseudoscience is no choice at all. One should believe in
neither, but instead look for the evidence. Even Galileo did not stand up
for what he believed--he only stood up for what he could prove.

Because science is a collective, rather than an individual, endeavor, we
can relate to scientific issues that are beyond our current comprehension.
Specializing in applied optics, I have lost intimate contact with the
physics and mathematics of cosmology, and I read the same popularized
accounts that are available to the layperson. How then do I draw
conclusions about cosmology? The answer is twofold. First, I accord my
cosmology colleagues the same respect and skepticism that I expect from
them. Their conclusions, published in reputable, peer-reviewed journals
and not yet refuted, stand as the best that we currently know about the
topic. Second, I do not necessarily accept these conclusions as ultimate
truth, since even peer-reviewed conclusions must also pass the test of
time. This may take decades or centuries, but eventually, a surviving
theory is established as fact.

What distinguishes science from philosophy or theology is that the debate
ends conclusively at some point. We know that Earth is not the center of
the universe, and we can describe planetary motions through Newtonian
mechanics and even apply relativistic corrections--such matters are no
longer in doubt. If students cannot fully comprehend them, that does not
mean that they are free to believe in alternative theories. That is what
Singham should have told his creationist student, rather than saluting his
independent spirit. Anyone ruled by a belief is the opposite of an
independent spirit. And the students who accepted what Singham taught were
not necessarily dolts, but perhaps they suspected that the conclusions of
science were more likely to be correct than the pronouncements of
pseudoscience. Perhaps they applied the same probabilistic judgment that
we all must apply when faced with issues beyond our ken.

The corollary of the preceding is that teaching orbitals to 10th graders
or the Big Bang to college sophomores is a bad idea. Students at those
levels do not have the background knowledge to appreciate such concepts.
"Introductory" modern physics courses wrongly pretend to be science
courses. They should be thought of as liberal arts courses, in which the
students receive a necessarily superficial overview to satisfy their
curiosity about current topics and to expand their imaginations. Real
science courses should be taught only when students have the background to
appreciate and understand the material, not when they must accept what is
presented by an act of faith. We need to remove fluff and reinstate rigor
in science instruction. Otherwise, fewer and fewer people will be able to
distinguish between the methods of science and those of creationism or
other pseudoscience. And we scientists will have contributed by failing to
understand and properly propagate the scientific method.
 

Pantazis Mouroulis
Pasadena, California

POWRÓT