Reply to comment

I really think that science as story telling and story revising is an exciting and engaging way to view the process of "doing science." It views science as much more relevant to society, making science an engine for change rather than a body of facts and knowledge one must acquire. I think often students (and teachers) think of science as performing a lab to come to the same conclusion others have already drawn. It is much more engaging and exciting to think of science as a story to which chapters can be added. The more technology advances the more our ability to make observations advances as well. I suppose my only reservation with this model is the ability to harmonize different types of stories. For example, when discussing evolution are religious beliefs the same kind of story as the fossil record. While I appreciate that they are both valid stories, I'm not sure that I accept them both as scientific stories. The two stories may not be completely incompatible, and I suppose I'm wondering if making distinctions between stories is necessary. On some level, science as story telling and story revising challenges us to leave our comfort zones (and challenge students to leave their's as well)and challenge what we accept to be truth and how we justify believing what we do.