On their own, either process may be difficult and require substantial ingenuity. Of course, it would be much easier to construct rational theories to explain nature without empirical validation or to perform experiments and process data without a rigorous theoretical framework. Mathematical theories must be formulated and be precisely tied to empirical measurements. The demand for quantitative prediction places a burden on the scientist. Hans Reichenbach summarizes the connection: “Observation informs us about the past and the present, reason foretells the future.” Prediction is a product of reason, but reason grounded in the empirical. In demanding quantitative predictions of future experience, science requires formulation of mathematical models whose relations can be tested against future observations.

Science is neither rationalism nor empiricism. While the epistemological details are subtle and require expertise relating to experimental protocol, mathematical modeling, and statistical analysis, the general notion of scientific knowledge is expressed in these three requirements. The “truth” (validity) of the theory is judged based on the concordance between the predictions and the observations. This basic experimental-mathematical epistemology evolved until, in the first half of the twentieth century, it took a stringent form involving (1) a mathematical theory constituting scientific knowledge, (2) a formal operational correspondence between the theory and quantitative empirical measurements, and (3) predictions of future measurements based on the theory. Modern science emerged in the seventeenth century with two fundamental ideas: planned experiments (Francis Bacon) and the mathematical representation of relations among phenomena (Galileo). This assault is not rooted in unlearned political commentary, but in the attitudes of scientists themselves. More alarmingly, science has been under siege for more than half a century from a very different set of forces. Still, although it is worrisome, sophomoric banter does not directly attack the integrity of science. The degree of harm will depend on the dedication of scientists and their intrinsic desire to gain knowledge. Nevertheless, such rhetoric can result in auxiliary harm to science by inclining scientists to adhere to acceptable lines in order to further their careers or avoid castigation. A Google search returns about 350,000 hits for “war on science.” Glancing through the first hundred results reveals that this “war” consists mainly of political posturing.

The real war on science