I was reading - well, trying to read - one of the "non-scientific" explainations Fermi puts out (this was on DZero I believe).
This "for the layperson" explanation had such phrases as "transverse momentum", etc. Yeah, I know a lot of laypeople that will go through 15 pages of that, and have a clue what it was about.
Er, right. I had a point with this comment. I really did.
There is no end to my annoyance when I have to resort to the "For the Public" section to find out how my detector works, and when I can't understand even that. Somewhere there are people who can explain this clearly, but they must be allergic to webpage writing.
Normally I can end up with a vague inkling from context and judicious use of google and the dictionary, but even though I love the implications of new research, it's a constant uphill battle to understand wtf they're going on about.
However, in the matter of what is and is not necessary... I tend to err on the side of "ooo, shiny letters from reputable school... yes master, whatever you say master..."
Not sure what that makes me. Our answer to the pious churchman, I guess, science being a new religion and all.
...And somewhere, a million scientists cry out in terror...
Not sure what that makes me. Our answer to the pious churchman, I guess, science being a new religion and all.
What was that old quote? Something about any sufficiently advanced technology being magic? heh.
Scientists working on basic research actually produce something, which puts them ahead of the Department of Homeland Security. They also spend a lot of time doing it. This is in contrast to the INS, where 73% of the employees have been on a coffee break since 1995, or the Department of Transportation, which randomly shuts down roads and airports just to see if they still remember how to do it.*snicker* That is all
( ... )
The fact that people do treat science like religion is one of the most disturbing features about scientific illiteracy.
Absolutely agreed. Science is meant to tell you how things happen, not why they happen. Which is why I die a little inside every time I see one of those little Darwin ichthus bumper stickers. Christianity and evolution are not in conflict, and never should have been placed in that position. It wasn't until lately when people began insisting that the Bible be taken 100% literally that the issue even arose.
So...um. Yeah. Mini-rant aside, your point on worldview is good.
The point has ultimately arrived where public ignorance of the progress and purpose of science is not only harmful to the field, it also promotes an entire litter of pseudoscientific disciplines that suck away time, money, and brainpower.
Has science literacy amongst the general public really declined, though? Was the general public more interested in science in the past, or just interested in the products of science? Victorian spiritualism thrived alongside major strides in biology, chemistry and physics, for example. I'm not certain that the crackery has necessarily grown more pronounced. It may just be more visible due to the current political regime.
While I agree that science needs to explain itself better I'm not certain the general public is interested in listening unless it can somehow be made important to them for reasons other than intellectual curiosity. The same is true of matters such as international politics. Ask the average person about the conflict in Nepal and many won't have heard about it. On the other
( ... )
In my view the key to improved science literacy is to catch children at that phase when they are fascinated with dinosaurs, or astronomy, or robots, or what have you, and foster that attitude of interest and exploration. Certainly most scientists that I know (myself included) became scientists because we never "grew out of" that curious infatuation with knowledge. The question is how is that to be accomplished when it seems that the school system has difficulty in turning out students with a rudimentary grasp of the basics
( ... )
I'm just upset that physicists seem to view the very concept of engaging in PR as similar to catching the plague. It's something that you avoid at all costs. It's actually not something intentional. It's just what they end up doing. I'm not sure why either.
We need to spend more time on outreach, but there aren't enough scientists or scientifically trained people for that. Maybe if we could do a better job in education...but that would require more commitment from us as instructors. Quite frankly, I'm at a loss. All I can do is highlight the problem. Solutions will come later.
The point has ultimately arrived where public ignorance of the progress and purpose of science is not only harmful to the field, it also promotes an entire litter of pseudoscientific disciplines that suck away time, money, and brainpower
Most of which capitalise really well on the idea that science is a kind of arbitrary set of rules designed to be non-questionable by the ruling elite. I've seen alternative medicine's supporters pull that one a lot ("but of course they want you to believe that double-blind testing is a good idea! It helps them maintain their monopoly!"), and of course the creationists have built an entire pseudoscientific movement out of it
( ... )
Comments 15
I was reading - well, trying to read - one of the "non-scientific" explainations Fermi puts out (this was on DZero I believe).
This "for the layperson" explanation had such phrases as "transverse momentum", etc. Yeah, I know a lot of laypeople that will go through 15 pages of that, and have a clue what it was about.
Er, right. I had a point with this comment. I really did.
Reply
Reply
Normally I can end up with a vague inkling from context and judicious use of google and the dictionary, but even though I love the implications of new research, it's a constant uphill battle to understand wtf they're going on about.
However, in the matter of what is and is not necessary... I tend to err on the side of "ooo, shiny letters from reputable school... yes master, whatever you say master..."
Not sure what that makes me. Our answer to the pious churchman, I guess, science being a new religion and all.
...And somewhere, a million scientists cry out in terror...
Reply
What was that old quote? Something about any sufficiently advanced technology being magic? heh.
Scientists working on basic research actually produce something, which puts them ahead of the Department of Homeland Security. They also spend a lot of time doing it. This is in contrast to the INS, where 73% of the employees have been on a coffee break since 1995, or the Department of Transportation, which randomly shuts down roads and airports just to see if they still remember how to do it.*snicker* That is all ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Absolutely agreed. Science is meant to tell you how things happen, not why they happen. Which is why I die a little inside every time I see one of those little Darwin ichthus bumper stickers. Christianity and evolution are not in conflict, and never should have been placed in that position. It wasn't until lately when people began insisting that the Bible be taken 100% literally that the issue even arose.
So...um. Yeah. Mini-rant aside, your point on worldview is good.
Reply
Has science literacy amongst the general public really declined, though? Was the general public more interested in science in the past, or just interested in the products of science? Victorian spiritualism thrived alongside major strides in biology, chemistry and physics, for example. I'm not certain that the crackery has necessarily grown more pronounced. It may just be more visible due to the current political regime.
While I agree that science needs to explain itself better I'm not certain the general public is interested in listening unless it can somehow be made important to them for reasons other than intellectual curiosity. The same is true of matters such as international politics. Ask the average person about the conflict in Nepal and many won't have heard about it. On the other ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
We need to spend more time on outreach, but there aren't enough scientists or scientifically trained people for that. Maybe if we could do a better job in education...but that would require more commitment from us as instructors. Quite frankly, I'm at a loss. All I can do is highlight the problem. Solutions will come later.
Reply
Most of which capitalise really well on the idea that science is a kind of arbitrary set of rules designed to be non-questionable by the ruling elite. I've seen alternative medicine's supporters pull that one a lot ("but of course they want you to believe that double-blind testing is a good idea! It helps them maintain their monopoly!"), and of course the creationists have built an entire pseudoscientific movement out of it ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment