Reply to comment

I think you bring up a great point: that if educators stress that the "right answer" is in fact just a current story which seems to have the most relevance to the situation, then education will head in a direction based moreso on the development and progress of finding answers, rather than on the right answer itself.  I don't think that the "right answer" will lose credibility; if anything, I hope that it encourages people to keep pursuing observations and continuing to explore possibilities.  

I think you also bring up a valid point about inquiry.  As Paul described today, there can be wrong answers -- that is, an observation can be made that disproves a previous summary of events.  When that observation is made, we must acknowledge that our previous summary was inaccurate and make a new one.  I think that open-ended inquiry should be taught with emphasis on development, just as I stated in my above paragraph.  You bring up that inquiry doesn't mean that all students can arrive at their own conclusions and be right -- which I believe was a questionable topic today.  There is a certain subjectiveness that must be allotted when considering open-ended inquiry: the fact that one can be wrong.  Wil said that he felt the "crack" was a never-ending loop of subjectiveness; however, I think that if other teachers consider your point that science as inquiry is not entirely subjective and correct, this crack seems much more approachable and workable.