Having an explanation for things is something that gives us comfort. Whether it's an engineer needing to be sure that a structure will stand, or parents wanting to know why their child has died, the need is similar: we have questions, and we want answers. It doesn't make much difference that one set of questions lies in the scientific realm and the other (in our case) in the spiritual. Either way, we try to rationalise what we experience within a frame of reference that makes sense to us.
Learning science at school, it's easy to think of it as an objective set of answers that explain the world around us, but more important than the answers are the questions that led to them. The wrong question can lead to an experimental cul-de-sac. The right question can produce creative insight, and may open up a whole new realm of answers and further questions. Defining "the right question", though, depends a lot on what we are trying to achieve.
Often scientific questions are posed in direct response to a theory or idea we want to prove or disprove. This isn't wrong, it's the way we build our understanding. But it means that there is an agenda behind the question, and we should recognise that this is not a philosophically neutral process. Education, I think, should be more about the exploration of questions, and interpreting the basis of the answers. Just accepting someone else’s answers to our questions – or even allowing others to define the questions for us – can be dangerous.
