Inner Dialogue

DK: You said that science is a "dialogue" I believe. That's the first time I've heard it referred to as that. Can you explain that a little more?

SK: the process of scientific discovery happens roughly like this. someone has an idea. they test it out and find out something interesting. they write down their thoughts and compress the data into a readable form. these ideas are sent to a publisher in the form of a paper. this paper is not published at this time. the paper is then sent to several other scientists with similar expertise. these scientists read the paper and make comments about whether they think the data is valid and whether they agree with the conclusions drawn from the data. these comments are returned to the author of the paper for review and rebuttal. this cycle continues until everyone is satified that the paper has good technical merit and strong conclusions based on the data presented.

this of course is an idealization of the process, but it isn't too far from what really happens. what we refer to as science is actually the result of this dialogue that occurs. what most people think of as science is the collection of conclusions drawn from the available data, but the conclusions are always up for reinterpretation when new data or new theories arise. it is not a static discipline at all.