Reply to comment

There are two somewhat distinct issues, one is science as loopy, unending, not Truth. The other is science as "story". The first seems to me critical, not only because it provides ways for students to engage more effectively with science (as many have noted) but also because is in actually what importantly differentiates science from other human activities, and can hopefully help offset peoples' wish for certainty generally. We'll also see important parallels between science and the brain with regard to both loopiness and tentativeness.

There are important reasons to worry about "story" with regard to science, since as a word it calls up unintended meanings (something with a beginning and end, something that is a lie, something that doesn't have to be taken seriously, something I can believe in whatever anyone else says). On the other hand, it also calls up meanings very much intended (not True, way of making sense of things that is perspective/author dependent, something to share with others, something that can change over time). Here too, we'll say important parallels between science and the brain with regard to story telling (and revising).