This article is complaining that people are taught a rigorous form of science that not enough science meets, and asks that it’s replaced by some sociology of sc

This article is complaining that people are taught a rigorous form of science that not enough science meets, and asks that it’s replaced by some sociology of science to determine which scientists to trust. It’s not wrong, and maybe I’m too much of an idealist in believing that “science as inquiry” is the right goal to aspire to, and that it’s feasible. In my mind, we just don’t teach kids science as inquiry well. It’s too much like the heavily complained about way we teach math, where it’s formulas you just plug things into. Kids can plug a, b, and c into a quadratic formula but then can’t handle a word problem. Likewise with science. You’re taught it as a bunch of rote mechanical steps at the expense of teaching to do the “word problems.” Any science education track that doesn’t include a stats and experimental design course isn’t teaching science as a tool, in my book. It’s just teaching facts. Maybe I’m wrong and teaching kids more than memorization is too lofty a goal, but I think statistical illiteracy is more of a barrier than “science as inquiry” is.