McComas’ Myths of Science

This blog responds to and make comments about William McComas’ article titled, “Ten Myths of Science: Reexamining What We Think We Know…”

In case you weren’t aware, that was a nod to the original article (which is linked here).

McComas briefly examines the mainstream role of myths, where they can be entertaining and humorous, and contrasts them with myths surrounding science. He explains that such myths are harmful in the ways in which they blur and block the public’s understanding of reality.

I find this statement compelling in the sense that we should accept hypotheses are most likely wrong, but fear myths. In class we talked about accepting our wrongness, but I also read an article that spoke around this area. A common critique brought up about having false hypotheses or understandings is that we are simply “choosing the answer we already know is wrong”. This, however, is false. We are not choosing something that is wrong, and even if we were we are not simply accepting that something we think is wrong. Rather, we strive to prove ourselves wrong to expand our understanding of what is true. This thinking has also been influenced by the thoughts of Karl Popper surrounding falsifiability, where in order for something to be truly scientific the hypothesis or theory in question must be capable of being proven wrong (therefore capable of being tested).

This contrasts with myths as we are so eager to believe what they state as truth. Not only this, but we spread it (McComas even stated that scientific myths are spread most by science textbooks). Myths somehow manage to become concepts that no one tries to check or disprove. This is where they become so detrimental to our understanding of the world. Like McComas stated, they blur our understanding. Who would’ve thought that such an innocent seeming word could do such harm?

M Y T H O N E: hypotheses become theories which become laws

The danger surrounding this myth lies in the fact that people are more willing to dismiss scientific knowledge due to not understanding the evidence and explanation that surrounds it.

Due to the nature of the word “law” we automatically associate it with the top of a hierarchy. In reality, laws are observations that we generally accept to be true (generalizations, patterns, etc.). Contrarily, theories are collections of knowledge that explain principles. Laws are the whats while theories are the whys.

I have multiple questions surrounding why we think this way.

Similarly to before, I’m intrigued by the fact that we seem to be wired in a way where our brain messes up connotations so much.

I also feel the need to wonder why we seem lenient to accept science. We learn to trust anything scientific. We learn, we admire, and we like to throw out “its a scientific fact” in any argument that we’re losing. However, in certain moments we so easily deny science when it doesn’t align with what we believe (or want to believe). Instead, we say something is “just a theory”.

M Y T H T W O: a hypothesis is an educated guess

This is yet another example of harm coming from our skewing of words and their meanings.

Interestingly enough, the solution that has come up is to throw out the term hypothesis (called an immature theory by Issac Newton).

As McComas wrote, “…the question remains, ‘an educated guess about what?’ The best answer for this question must be, that without a clear view of the context in which the term is used, it is impossible to tell,” I immediately answered.

“An educated guess about why something happens!”

However, I know good and well that I have never come up with a hypothesis that guesses why something happens. Rather, my hypotheses fall more under the category of, “An educated guess about what will happen.”

Whilst reading this I feel troubled pondering the role of science in education. Particularly the science fair and the “scientific method”.

M Y T H T H R E E: a general and universal scientific method exists

I don’t have much to say regarding this myth as it is fairly straightforward.

I’ve already mentioned our beloved “scientific method”, however, McComas contributes a potential cause for our believing that said method is universal. That being that we assumed so from scientific journals.

Understanding that the scientific method isn’t so strict as we’ve been taught allows for such a brighter view of science. Science isn’t perfect and it doesn’t follow some formula. Scientists are not just math geniuses or “book smart”, rather, they’re creative and innovative.

M Y T H F O U R: evidence accumulated carefully will result in sure knowledge

On a broad note we can go back to early TOK discussions regarding whether or not we can be truly sure of anything.

However, this also correlates to what scientific knowledge really is through falsification as well as induction (a topic McComas goes into).

M Y T H F I V E: science and its methods provide absolute proof

In my eyes this honestly falls very similar to myth four.

M Y T H S I X: science is procedural more than creative

M Y T H S E V E N: science and its methods can answer all questions

M Y T H E I G H T : scientists are particularly objective

I’m choosing to group these three together as they all led me down a similar thought process.

With each myth it is apparent that they are concerning due to the belittling they do of science. This connects back to my earlier discussion of myth three. What strikes me even more is the fact that so much of this false information is spread through textbooks and science classes (which was not only stated by McComas, but also something I can say that I have witnessed).

I began the article a bit critical of the author as though he was being a bit dramatic about the severity these myths could cause, however, as I continue I understand. Science being put into a pretty little category is limiting what it is capable of doing and therefore our understanding of the world and potential progressions we could be making.

It may be that I’m sensitive to such treatment of science due to what we’re experiencing with COVID, however, I like to believe that COVID has only broadened my belief in science and opened my eyes to myths.

M Y T H N I N E: experiments are the principal route to scientific knowledge

Yet another myth caused by our failure to understand words!

McComas states that what we believe to be experiments can usually be better described as, “technical procedures, explorations or activities”.

The main thing to gain from recognizing this myth is that scientific knowledge can be gained from many different ways.

M Y T H T E N: all work in science is reviewed to ensure the work is honest

In reality, most scientific work isn’t reviewed due to scientists being busy.

This brings up an interesting conundrum. Is it more valuable to constantly produce more scientific knowledge or to have various scientists reproducing other scientists work to test its validity?

I myself would prefer the first option as we previously recognized the fact that what is produced can’t be sure anyways, so what does reproducing it actually do other than confirming a thought than we can never completely accept as reality?

Overall, I feel as though we need to grow to understand various scientific terms and concepts. This would better our understanding of what science actually is and allow it to grow.

My brain is a bit fried from thinking too hard and failing to write. For all we know, everything I just said could have been the spread of misinformation (also known as a myth). But we can never really be sure.