quote:
So my point now isn't so much that science needs to assume the presence of supernatural forces, but that it's equally true that science shouldn't do the opposite--as it does in textbooks, for example.
Shouldn't science textbooks simply tell a person what methods have been used and what models have been generated using those methods?
In going through histories of specific disciplines one will encounter mention of theories that once were held and the evidence that did it in.
I am uncertain why a science textbook should deal with possible realities and entities which have yet to fall "under the microscope". That would seem to be something for a philosophy textbook, or more specifically a philosophy of science textbook.
I'm all for kids learning more about the philosophy behind scientific investigation as well as pure logic. But again, that seems to be outside the scope of classes focusing on what does X say right now about natural phenomena 1, 2, and 3?
------------------
holmes