> “Science as inquiry” education, at its best, teaches students an ideal set of methods for improving scientific knowledge. It suggests that our current scienti

> “Science as inquiry” education, at its best, teaches students an ideal set of methods for improving scientific knowledge. It suggests that our current scientific knowledge has grown, over the past four centuries since the scientific revolution (when modern science is widely held to have come about), in this ideal way. Even if that were true, there is an implicit dependence on students trusting that what they are taught in the classroom has been discovered and justified in this ideal way. Very much agree with the author that the social aspect of the industry of science should be taught more. But it's exactly thanks to "'science as inquiry' education" that so many embrace mainstream climate change theories. Many genuinely think there's some undeniable evidence and logic making "climate scientists" believe in cataclysmic runaway warming. The truth is, we don't even have good temperature measurements. Most "climate scientists" have no expertise in measuring temperatures. They're not that interested in improving temp monitoring tech. They're not embracing satellite temperature monitoring which is superior in almost every way to traditional surface stations. Instead, they tend to ignore it or focus on its (few) flaws. Why? Because satellite data shows no net warming since 1998 which contradicts many mainstream theories. The guy who pioneered satellite temp monitoring happens to be a major skeptic. GISS, the most widely used temperature dataset is based on simple old-school surface stations. Not that many of them, in fact. It's so bad that they're known to publish errors so blatant that they have been spotted (by "deniers") by checking against local weather websites. One has to understand negative results are inherently uninteresting to scientists and the broader public. It's not that rouge scientist conspire to dominate a field. When you conclude there's nothing going on or that there are fundamental epistemic limitations to studying a given field, you have much less of an incentive to participate. If you still do, your work is bound to be "against" [what's out there], rather than "for" something. Hard to make a career out of being a hater. Or to even enjoy it.