> 3. The end-product of science is not truth, it is explanations of observations. The term 'science' is used in this way. Perhaps it should not be. Perhaps sem

> 3. The end-product of science is not truth, it is explanations of observations. The term 'science' is used in this way. Perhaps it should not be. Perhaps semantics drive the issue. In the field in which I am familiar, we have 'expert witnesses' that will use reproducible scientific principles to analyze, for instance, blood scatter to determine the angle in which a shotgun was held when it discharged and blew off a particular person's head. The principles -- based on physics, chemistry, etc -- are sound and scientific. The problem is, we will invariably have TWO very scientific expert witnesses who BOTH use reproducible and accepted methods. Yet, using their scientific tools, they will come to two utterly different conclusions. It's left to a jury to decide which interpretation is correct. While the tools used by the experts are scientific, their opinions are not. While their scientific tools are reproducible (for instance, the speed at which coagulating blood and brain tissue will slide down a stucco wall given all the variables such as temperature, humidity, friction coefficients, etc.) their ultimate reconstruction of what happened is not reproducible, and it is left to lay people to draw their conclusions. There should be more of a distinction between Science and History. That is, science -- strictly defined -- is all about reproducibility. History -- by definition -- is not. Using scientific tools to reconstruct a past event does not result in a 'scientific' theory. Rather, it results in a historical theory arrived at with scientific tools. Whether it is blood scatter from a murder (or suicide, depending on whom you ask), the formation of the Grand Canyon, or the development of finch beaks on Galapagos, the ultimate theories are inherently non-scientific as they can not be tested. The methods and tools used to derive the theories can be... but not the conclusion itself. In short, perhaps the term 'science' is being used for things outside its domain. (Or, alternatively, if we wish to include such things inside the domain, we should broaden the strict definition of science. Like I said, there are some issues of semantics that may be driving some of the issues in the article... other issues, of course, pertain to sloppiness, errors, and the like.)