Thinking About Science: Fact Versus Story Telling and Story Revising

Science is a toolbox in your brain, knowing and having the tools to approach any problem.

I like the story metaphor because it makes science less "dusty." If science were to be presented in this light, maybe more people could understand exactly how "summaries of observations" work and are usable applications.

"Science is like a conquistador...you set sail into a new world, unsure of what you'll discover. Sometimes you have to conquer a few civilizations, but eventually you envelop a whole new world of ideas to understand."

Science as storytelling allows much more room for improvement and growth than the original scientific method. The idea of the constant changing of theories and "summaries of observation" is incredible because no real truth can ever be discovered; there will always be a chance to go back and reformulate ideas and notions that may be different than those of other people.

Science is like a clock; all the cogs must fit together to function with success, and it functions in cycles (in the respect that one stage must be completed for the next to proceed).

I am a bit indifferent to the way of looking at science presented. While I can see the logic associated with it, I don't believe it is exactly necessary to pick one way of seeing it. I'm sure many successful (however they choose to define "success") scientists have looked at their work in both or either ways.
In addition, many people seek comfort in determining what is seen as the "truth." For them, truth provides stability and support in a sometimes unpredictable world. Similarly, some people rely on religion for this solace.

My first metaphor was: Science is like exploring a new world.
I like the science is storytelling metaphor more. It seems to allow for more revision, more movement and a greater flow of ideas. The summary of observations seems so much more realistic than a hypothesis that needs to be proven true. Proving things wrong seems like a better way of learning science --just like innocent until proven guilty. There is more room for improvement, and more allowances made for bias. It accepts that scientists are human, and uses their bias to create a diversity of ideas (read: summaries of observations) and these ideas can play off each other and create more ideas.

1) Science is like a way of examining the world with a focus of why and how

2) I personally prefer the Science story telling model better than the traditional model for several reasons. The storytelling model allows for more flexibility in the way you look at science. The model also lets more people have different ways of looking at the same observations, which I think allows for a better perspective. When you use the storytelling model to look at issues such as evolution, discussion is easier because none of the summaries listed on the website can be disproven.

"Science is like a new land waiting to be discovered and explored" -Fabz 2008

The traditonal persepcetive of teaching science implies that there is a hypothesis that is made, an experiment that is carried out, and a conclusion that is taken from the experiment. The story-telling perspective of science implies that a summary of observations is made, new observations are taken from the summary, and implications on whether the summary continues to work or needs to be replaced is made. The story-telling perspective is more helpful and useful in "conducting" science because it shows how science never really reaches a right or wrong answer, but reaches a state in which the previous summary can be replaced with a new one.

Science is like stepping into a world where you know how everything around you works.

Looking at science not in the traditional way, but in the loopy story telling way makes science a lot more fun. When using the rigid traditional way, I feel like I have to follow a certain pattern and repeat what I learn in the textbooks. If I don't, I'm going to fail my class. However, looking at science like it is a group of observations that we make summaries from and continue test them, makes me feel like I can be a scientist without years and years of reading textbooks. Finding something wrong in a summary is a good thing, as it is a way to change science and moving it forward. Basically I just feel like the loopy story telling science opens up many more opportunities to learn.

Science is like...being nowhere and everywhere at the same time.

I feel that thinking of science in a way of loopy story or rather a summary of observations that remains until new observations are made that no longer fit the original summary is more useful than the traditional perspective. It allows for one to be more accepting of new and innovative ideas regarding...well, everything. In my experience within Dover's evolution court case I feel that is could have been completely avoided. If the parents and the students were taught that evolution and the ideas of a supernatural beings were not truth but really summaries of observations that have yet to be disproven, people especially parents wouldn't of jumped to the conclusion that the teachers are forcing beliefs onto their children but were really just opening them to new ideas that they can use and accept in whatever way they so choose. To be honest, most of the students didn't mind learning about the different theories but were more bothered by the fact that one simple thing was creating such a ruckus among the small town of Dover. I feel that one huge problem in society is the lack of ability to accept things that seem to be out of the ordinary to us. If we were taught in school how to accept things without necessarily believing in them a lot of controversy would be seen on many topics. I personally feel that at some point in our education the traditional perspective should be dropped and the loopy story telling perspective should be adopted.