PART 1

My environmental science class always starts with SCIENCE. What is it? How do we use it? What are its limitations? We discuss science, how it's based on empirical evidence while religion is based on faith. We also talk at length about Junk Science. At this point I usually show a short movie clip from Ghostbusters, the one where Dr. Peter Venkman is "studying" negative reinforcement on ESP ability. Man, that shit is funny every time.

But when I flip the lights back on, I notice J shaking his head. He tells me science is a pointless activity. He says, whenever someone proves one thing someone else comes along and tries to prove the opposite. So how are we supposed to know who is right? I explain: Real science is made public and must endure criticism from the scientific community. It can be a long process. It may take years or even decades for an idea to mature into scientific theory or scientific law. And even then, we might not know everything or anything absolutely.

But what is the alternative? Should we stop exploring the natural world? Should we wear loincloths, chant something nonsensical, drink blessed newt heads, and then curl up in a cave? Dude, they were called the Dark Ages for a very good reason.

He gave me a tight smile as he tucked his books under his arm. I don't think he absorbed any of my words.