Not all of the topics that we immediately identify as "scientific" are always and unequivocally so. Science provides a distinctive and powerful way (more accurately, ways) of looking at objects and phenomena, and its lens can be turned on just about any object or phenomenon we can think of, not just those that strike us as inherently "scientific." It does not follow that all claims about those things must be "scientific" claims in order to possess value.
David Porush, a writer of a well-respected textbook on science writing, demonstrates this point better than I can, so I will use his demonstration here:
Read the list of subjects below and cross off those that don't belong under the heading SCIENCE:
stars, comets, galaxies, atoms and molecules, fossils, dinosaurs, microbes, viruses, bacteria, genes, feelings, love, pheromones, drugs, chemicals, plastic, MTV, music, sound, fluid dynamics, perception, thinking, the mind, theories, nerves, jogging, fitness, aerobics, physiology, anaerobic bacteria, chrysanthemums, botany, Richard Nixon, politics, political science, The Cosby Show, television, signal processing, integrated electronics, pizza, diet, "The Mona Lisa," oil, paint, color, beauty.
By now [says Porush,] you have probably guessed the point: No particular subject or thing is scientific per se. Rather, science is a way of looking at the world. It is a point of view and an activity devoted to pursuing that point of view…. Pizza in itself is not scientific, but neither are molecules or stars. (Porush 242-43)
Porush, David. A Short Guide to Writing About Science. New York: Longman, 1995.
End of Page
Last Modified: