> The way that science is actually conducted in the lab and in the field is, > of course, more complicated and subject to variation between disciplines > (would we expect a theoretical physicist to use the same methodology as a > field archaeologist?), but, on the whole, as a first approximation, it isn't > that far from the way that science, in general, is practiced, with the only > serious omission, IMO, being the importance of peer review. > > To call it a "lie" is, in my not at all humble opinion, dogmatic. Well, yes. But what would you, then, label someone who says "This is the way it is done. This is THE method" when, in truth, it's only a standardized version? Or the one used generaly, but not always. It's a grey area, to me. Telling a bunch of kids that there is one way of doing something -- and they have to follow that way -- when, in fact, there are multiple ways of doing it may not be a lie *exactly*, but it comes pretty close. One could then call the teachers who say such dogmatic.... Now, if they were to mention that this was the way they were going to do it in class, but was in no means the only method out there, I wouldn't have such a problem. The more narrow the thinking, the less we learn. (Which, I suppose, is why I have no problem with my views being countered. Heck, I could be wrong....:) Chris