Interpretations:Science Is Real
I think this song is about what science is. And the second chorus describes that:
A scientific theory isn't just a hunch or guess
It's more like a question that's been put through a lot of tests
And when a theory emerges consistent with the facts
The proof is with science
The truth is with science
Science is real
Science is real, but much of it is theory.
I'm sorry the lyrics of this tune so blatantly intermingle factual science and theoretical science. Yes, theory is real too, but that doesn't mean it has been proven as implied. A scientist, David Suzuki, aptly wrote "Science is really in the business of disproving current models or changing them to conform to new information. In essence, we are constantly proving our latest ideas wrong."
Sorry, it is a fun and catchy tune, but the lyrics show that the science adviser misguided John.
- Umm, They're not saying science is true, rather it is real. Do you find theory to be less than science and not worth mentioning on a song about science? True, there is at least one theory that has been basically disproved. But if you listen to the song about what a scientific theory is, you find that theories are pretty much laws that can still be disproved. They are generally accepted as fact, or at least the idea that fits with the most facts. -- DidgeGuy (आ ज) 13:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- I could be totally off here, but my understanding of this stuff was that basically everything is technically called a theory because there isn't really a way to definitively DEFINITIVELY prove much of anything, but that doesn't mean it can't be essentially accepted as factual. (Like, I believe gravity is technically still considered a "theory" but there aren't exactly people running around arguing against that one...) --Self Called Nowhere 00:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
How do we know what is real?
In philosophy, this question is called: Epistemology or the "Theory of Knowledge"
It's obviously a complex topic that you can read about here if interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
But my point is that ever since the Enlightenment (i.e. the end of the Dark Ages), the prevailing view has been that the best answer to this question is "Rationality". Science is how that answer has been put into practice for the past 500 years or so of explosive scientific progress. Many (if not all) people reading this owe almost everything they have and enjoy to the things that we can use our well-vetted Scientific Theories to accomplish. Perhaps even your very life and almost certainly the life of someone you care about are thanks to the things we have learned about medical science.
Rigid Religious systems have a different answer to the Epistemological question, their answer is "Authority". This Philosophy, while born around the same time as the "Classical Scientists" (Aristotle et. al.), Was the stronger twin and ruled the world until someone turned on the lights. I'm afraid, however that they have a pretty shoddy track record when it comes to figuring out that the world is round, the Earth orbits the Sun, slavery is wrong, women are people too... the list goes on and on for a long and sad procession. I think it's safe to say that the greater majority of present-time Religious Fundamentalists are wrong to this very day.
It is certainly possible to be religious and not a fundamentalist - those are not the people I'm talking about. There is more than one tool in the human toolbox, look at how many metaphors I've been using in the second half of this post. While they are not "real" or "true" in a strictly rational sense, you may not have noticed until I just pointed it out. The difference between an irrational claim and a rational claim is not always immediately obvious, and very often you can take an irrational road to get to a rational destination. It's healthy to know when you are doing this though, when the zombies come, you want to be the one with the most advanced weapon (Praise Science!), not the guy praying for angels... ChaosS (talk) 23:24, 12 September 2013 (EDT)