Home | Search Serendip
Serendip

Science as Exploration/Story Telling and
The Brain as a Scientist/Explorer/Story Teller

The Nature of Science

Science as Story Telling and Story Revision
(article, web resources, on-line forum)

Linear scienceSeriously loopy science
  
Science as body of facts established by specialized fact-generating people and process

Science as successive approximations to Truth


Science as authority about "natural world"

Science as ongoing process of getting it less wrong, potentially usable by and contributed to by everyone

Science as ongoing making of observations, intepreting/summarizing, making new observations, making new summaries

Science as process of inquiry into anything, one which everybody is equiped to do/can get better at/be further empowered by, and contribute to - a way of making sense of what is but even more of exploring what might yet be

If science is as much about creation as discovery then the "crack"is a feature, not a bug ... and differences among people are an asset to the process rather than a problem or an indication it isn't working

Trying It Out

Which of the following two stories do you prefer?
  1. The earth is flat (Flat Earth Society)
  2. The earth is round

Because of ...
  • personal observations?
  • observations made by others (personally verified or not)?
  • social stories (heard from others)?
  • usefulness?

Is one or the other story true? Have there been others? Are there others? Will there be?

Which of the following two stories do you prefer?
  1. The sun goes around the earth
  2. The earth goes around the sun

Because of ...
  • personal observations?
  • observations made by others (personally verified or not)?
  • social stories (heard from others)?
  • usefulness?
  • is one or the other story "true"? are there others?

Is one or the other story true? Have their been others? Are there others? Will there be?

Scientific stories are frequently efforts to summarize the widest possible range of observations, always motivate new observations and hence new stories, should never be understood as "authoritative" or "believed in", do not compete with or invalidate other stories. Key issues about scientific stories
  • What observations do they summarize?
  • What new observations do they motivate?

Which of the following stories do you prefer?

  1. Existing life forms (including humans) are as they are because of a previous and ongoing process of evolution consisting of random change and natural selection (differential reproductive success).
  2. Existing life forms (including humans) are as they are because of repeated creative acts of a supernatural being with a plan and intent?
  3. Existing life forms (including humans) are as they are because of an initial creative act with a supernatural being with a plan and intent?
  4. Other?

Because of ...
  • personal observations?
  • observations made by others (personally verified or not)?
  • social stories (heard from others)?
  • usefulness?
  • is one or another story "true"?

Is one or another of these stories true? Have their been others? Are there others? Will there be?
Science = open-ended transactional cyclic observation/interpretation/creation; being wrong and conflict an important part of it; give up "definiteness" for usefulness and openness (pass it on)

The (scientific) story of evolution = open-ended transactional cyclic exploration in which diversity is critical

Where do we get the ability to inquire? to make observatons? tell/share/compare stories? revise hypotheses/stories?




| Introduction | Science | Brain: Basics | Brain: General Architecture | Brain: Bipartite | Implications | Metacognition | Science as Story Telling On-Line Forum |

Send us your comments at Serendip

© by Serendip 1994- - Last Modified: Thursday, 19-Oct-2006 16:45:09 EDT