The "Observational Science vs Historical Science" Error.

Nothing in science is directly observable. 

 

This article on Panda's Thumb tells us that:

Montana considers a bill that allows teaching of “scientific facts” but not “scientific theories”. ....

The bill in question is Montana Senate Bill 235, introduced by freshman Senator Dan Emrich. Prof. Coyne quotes the bill as saying

WHEREAS, [sic] the purpose of K-12 education is to educate children in the facts of our world to better prepare them for their future and further education in their chosen field of study, and to that end children must know the difference between scientific fact and scientific theory; and

WHEREAS, [sic] a scientific fact is observable and repeatable, and if it does not meet these criteria, it is a theory that is defined as speculation and is for higher education to explore, debate, and test to ultimately reach a scientific conclusion of fact or fiction.

Matt Young, the writer of the Panda's thumb article, goes on to say:

Very little in science can be considered an indisputable fact, so if this bill passes and becomes law, schools will not be allowed to teach, say, the theory of relativity, quantum theory, ideal gas theory, the germ theory of disease, or, for that matter, string theory or the theory of the leisure class. Or, what they are really after, the theory of evolution.

In other words, Sen. Emrich and his cosponsors are a trio of ignoramuses who do not have the foggiest idea what a scientific fact or a scientific theory is. They are very dangerous because, as Dr. Scott shows, they almost certainly have the Supreme Court on their side.

Matt Young is completely right. Senator Dan Emrich, on the other hand, has a toy-town notion of scientific epistemology which looks as though it has its origins in the religious fundamentalist's (Islam, Christian, etc.) notion of science. They use the crude and contrived bicategory of "observation vs. history" to dismiss historical science that doesn't fit in their worldview: Their misleading claim is that history isn't observational & therefore fundamentalist histories can then be patched in willy-nilly.

 In this blog entry I reference a discussion I had with a Christain Fundamentalist I called "Joe Smith". This discussion was largely centred around my criticism of the fundamentalist misrepresentation of scientific epistemology as having an "observational science vs historical science" distinction.