Wikipedia makes it sound like there are 2 parts to science: the acquisition of knowledge (experimental practice) as well as the body of knowledge itself (theory). What do you think? Is it possible to "learn science" without both involving both types of learning?
Yes, one can DO science without hands... without body, even! well, almost . On reading this point, I immediately thought of Stephen Hawking .
I would put it this way: science needs "brains" perhaps more than hands.
Also, more relevant to this discussion, Stephen Hawking's experience and work could also be as a good case-in-point of extreme how technology may drive us to re-think science.
According to the Academic Press Dictionary of Science & Technology science defined as "1. the systematic observation of natural events and conditions in order to discover facts about them and to formulate laws and principles based on these facts. 2. the organized body of knowledge that is derived from such observations and that can be verified or tested by further investigation. 3. any specific branch of this general body of knowledge, such as biology, physics, geology, or astronomy"
it seems to be like investigation ,discovering and known to unknown (research) always play a important part of science.
I am in too many dialogs this week but I ran across a couple of item that I think may be of interest to the discussion on what is science and what can the new technologies do to help educators present their lessons and materials. Yes experiments, scientific method (notice I did not say THE), lectures, collaborative projects are all potential tools but here are a couple of things that I think are pretty unique to being able to access Technology of the internet.
This could be used as an introduction to a project lesson, group discussion, or whatever you would like to do to enhance the topic after getting the students interest.
Newton's Laws of Motion
Same thing but another topic.
An incredible five minute tour of underwater creatures