Not always true. I've also seen it taught as observation, evidence, and testing of hypotheses.
Science relies on observation, evidence, and testing of hypotheses. A very clear distinction.
It also relies on a lot of speculation and there are uncertainties and controversies that often never get mention in the mainstream media that cloud the line between knowing and speculating. I've watched more than a few shows on the various cable documentary channels that show recreations of dinosaurs and other creatures using impressive computer graphics that give the impression that we know everything about these animals. In reality, the entire reconstruction is based on a few bone fragments that someone could hold in one hand and a whole lot of speculation about not only how the animal looked but how it behaved. In fact, science is built on even more fundamental yet unproven assumptions (e.g., the repeatability of experiments) that can encourage a researcher to ignore evidence that points in a direction that's different from the conventional wisdom on a matter that's considered settled.
In theory, science is about observation, evidence, and testing of hypotheses. Fair enough. But in practice, there is a whole lot of speculation, guessing, assumptions, and, well, dogma. And there are plenty of scientists who shift from testing their hypotheses to advocating them and it's unfortunately not uncommon to find scientists who should know better building arguments on logical fallacies because they've shifted from testing their hypotheses to defending their hypotheses in much the same way that they complain the creationists do.
Huh? Where is religion taught as "observation, evidence, and testing of hypotheses"? I'd like to go to that church.
It also relies on a lot of speculation and there are uncertainties and controversies that often never get mention in the mainstream media that cloud the line between knowing and speculating
Well, of course this is true. Haven't you ever "kicked around" an idea or two with your buddies before coming to a conclusion? It's what science is all about.
But in practice, there is a whole lot of speculation, guessing, assumptions, and, well, dogma.
I don't quite understand how you can lump "speculation, guessing, assumptions" in with "dogma"...but it's your brain.
As for me, I must go now to finish reviewing for a godless psychology exam. Y'all have fun!
Few scientists will claim they know everything about anything, with absolute certainty, even about their own area of expertise. I believe another FR posting just mentioned someone proposing dinosaurs many/most/all had feathers. Does that mean the cable show was all wrong?
No, it just means there are some things yet to be discovered, which will usually produce speculation. A paleontologist/archeologist critiquing the show could probably ramble on endlessly about relative scale, colors, sounds made or not made, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. In the end, these subjects didn't make the cut for a palatible show, in the producer's mind. And his doctorate(s) was in what science?!