The Nature of Science
The book's title is misleading at best, because only the first
chapter, comprising some 30 pages, even tries to tell about the
nature of science. The rest of the text consists of filler,
including gee-whiz tales, laboratory-safety tips, descriptions of
instruments, and some incompetent stuff about quantities and
measurement.
That first chapter is titled "What is Science?" The writers
evidently have no idea of the answer, for they give no sign of
recognizing that science revolves around the examination of evidence
and the application of reason. What is evidence? What
qualifies as evidence in a scientific setting, and what does not?
What do we mean by reason? These questions, which seem not to have
occurred to the writers at all, must be raised during any
effort to explain what science is, because the answers define the
difference between science and pseudoscience, between science and
quackery, between a scientific assertion about nature and an
assertion based on folklore.
Besides failing to discuss the concepts of evidence and reason, the
writers have failed to provide case histories that might have shown
how science corrects itself -- how scientists sometimes have
rejected evidence that they once had accepted, or how they have
revised their understanding of nature after combining old evidence
with new reasoning. This failure ensures that no student will gain
any idea of what science is or how it works.
So far, I've focused on the writers' failures. Now I'll describe
some of their achievements, so to speak.
One such achievement is the relentless confusion of science with
technology. We learn, for example, that "science" produces computer
chips, and that chemical spills are cleaned up by "scientists."
Another achievement is the presentation of a view of "science" that,
I infer, has been derived from two sources. One of these is
television. The writers evidently have watched a lot of
science-fiction movies and pseudoscientific commercials. This may explain
why they believe, apparently, that science pivots around the
ostentatious use of strange, incomprehensible words. It may also
explain why, in an exercise on page 37, they evidently want students
to recall old movies about mad scientists in remote laboratories.
The other source of the writers' notions seems painfully obvious:
Only by copying a lot of codswallop from earlier schoolbooks, I
believe, could they have come up with stuff that is so profoundly
stupid and so numbingly familiar. On page 14, for example, they
make the usual mess as they pretend to tell what a theory is, and
they manage to confuse a theory with a hypothesis. The term
hypothesis doesn't show up until page 20, where the writers
provide another familiar mess and show that they don't know what a
hypothesis is or what properties it must have.
Along with theories and hypotheses, the writers' phony science
includes "facts." Well, what are facts? The writers ignore
that issue entirely, saying only this: "Here is an example of a
fact: The sun is a source of light and heat." Maybe, but that fact
is based directly on sensation. In science, the most important
facts are usually provisional inferences that embody thought and
synthesis. The writers evidently don't know this.
Even after reading all of the writers' babbling about fact, theory
and hypothesis, the student will have no idea of what distinguishes
science from things that are not science. Nor will he be able to
see through the theatrics of quacks, astrologers, creationists and
other zanies who regularly use words like fact and
theory and hypothesis to dignify their worthless
claims.
Needless to say, the writers strongly promote the myth that
scientific work has to involve experiments. On page 13, for
example: "Using facts they have gathered, scientists propose
explanations for the events they observe. Then they perform
experiments to test their explanations." That stale, ignorant and
simple-minded formula has been peddled in schoolbooks for decades,
though it is bogus. The writers' devotion to it is nowhere clearer
than on page 27, where they try to deny what they have just been
saying. They merely show how ignorant they really are:
First, Darwin was a great experimentalist, and the statement that
he "did not perform a single experiment" is false and intolerably
misleading. Second, the whole passage is garbage. Its major point
-- that Darwin's reconstruction of evolutionary history was somehow
defective and would have been "better" if he had done experiments --
is sheer buffoonery. Historical events are unique. They are not
susceptible to experiment, and the concept of experimentation
doesn't apply here. We can do experiments to elucidate general
"rules" that govern natural events, but we cannot do experiments on
specific events that already have occurred. This is true whether
the events in question took millions of years, mere days, or mere
seconds.
I close by noting some items that are minor but, I believe, tell
still more about Prentice Hall's writers and about how The Nature
of Science was assembled:
The key word is "nitwit."
William J. Bennetta is a professional editor, a fellow of the
California Academy of Sciences, the president of The Textbook
League, and the editor of The Textbook Letter. He writes
often about the propagation of quackery, false "science" and false
"history" in schoolbooks.
Reviewing a middle-school book in the Prentice Hall Science
Series
1993. 112 pages. ISBN of tile teacher's edition: 0-13-986027-4.
This Book Is a Piece of Junk
William J. Bennetta
I've looked at about a dozen books in the Prentice Hall
Science series, and I've found that some of them show some
novelty. In this review, however, my task is to tell about a volume
that is quite traditional. It is called The Nature of
Science, and it comports with one of the more invidious
traditions of the textbook business: the concocting of books in
which science is described by people who lack even the dimmest
apprehension of what science is or what scientists do. The products
of this folly -- books so ignorant and witless that they will kill
any student's attempt to learn about science -- are familiar,
uniform and numerous. With the publication of The Nature of
Science, their number has increased by one. This book is just
another piece of junk.
Believe it or not, many scientists search for the truths of nature
without ever performing experiments. . . . Charles Darwin is
considered the father of the theory of evolution (how living things
change over time). Much of what we know about evolution is based on
Darwin's work. Yet Darwin did not perform a single experiment! He
based his hypotheses and theories on his observations of the natural
world. Certainly it would have been better had Darwin performed
experiments to prove his theory of evolution. But as the process of
evolution generally takes thousands, even millions of years,
performing an experiment would be a bit too time consuming!