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 hand people appear to me more naturally interested (on the whole) in matters like the affairs of celebrities. How does one package science to be more appealing? Pay Angelina Joli to wear clothes featuring drawings of molecules perhaps? Perhaps it's not that science isn't explaining itself well enough, but that it lacks sex appeal. While I would fervently like to believe that people generally would be interested in science and the message just needs to be reformulated for greater clarity to bolster understanding and appeal, the pessimistic part of me isn't so sure.
First is that I think that the gap between common knowledge and the scientific frontier is now too large to bridge by conventional means. And I believe that this gap will always grow larger. Eventually, science is going to have to either cut lose from civilian supervision whatsoever (which is an unreasonable expectation), or they will have to make people more capable of learning on their own. This will require a paradigm shift in how science is taught in schools, and it will require a much easier-to-use outreach framework.
Second is that I think that science may actually need some evangelism. There are powers who bring things like Nepal to our attention. On the other hand, scientists seem notoriously adverse to their own public relations. I think this behavior is self-destructive. I can't guarantee that people will come flocking, but I have met a lot of people who think that what we do is neat, but can't find anything explaining about it. Part of this requires science to be better at reaching out to its public. You'll never get everybody, but you do have to make it easier to access.
Just as a note, I think scientific literacy has declined, but possibly only in a minor fashion, and I believe that this may be on a generation-length cycle. I do, however, not have any evidence of any sort to back that up.
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 do a great deal of talking with curious members of the public, as do my colleagues. We actually do see the results in terms of the acceptance and support from most of the public. Of course there are always those who disagree, but that's not a bad thing. Actually we've surprised some parties by explaining the disagreements we have amongst ourselves, so that they have come to realize that we *don't* have all the answers and are learning as we go. The time commitment for this is quite staggering, however. Realistically it's also only effective on a local level, and frankly it cuts into our work time. Perhaps there needs to be new amalgamation of science and management as a career: the scientifically trained P.R. person.
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.
A part of the problem may also be that physics is decidedly one of the "harder" sciences that requires equipment and/or experiment to convey concepts clearly. That means that it can't really be effectively conveyed in a casual setting, leaving devoted education the only real option.
I know that I find the current trend of streaming students who aren't destined for the sciences into a single general "science" course (as opposed to the individual disciplines) in high school troubling. In theory it teaches a little of chemistry, physics, and biology. While this is a benefit when only two sciences are actually required for graduation, so that one isn't completely neglected, I can't escape the (perhaps mistaken) conviction that neither biology, chemistry, or physics can be adequately taught without devoting at least a semester to each exclusively. I wish I had some effective solutions to offer to the dilemma, but aside from saying "Teach more! Teach better!" I don't know that the answer is, either.
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 hand people appear to me more naturally interested (on the whole) in matters like the affairs of celebrities. How does one package science to be more appealing? Pay Angelina Joli to wear clothes featuring drawings of molecules perhaps? Perhaps it's not that science isn't explaining itself well enough, but that it lacks sex appeal. While I would fervently like to believe that people generally would be interested in science and the message just needs to be reformulated for greater clarity to bolster understanding and appeal, the pessimistic part of me isn't so sure.
Reply
First is that I think that the gap between common knowledge and the scientific frontier is now too large to bridge by conventional means. And I believe that this gap will always grow larger. Eventually, science is going to have to either cut lose from civilian supervision whatsoever (which is an unreasonable expectation), or they will have to make people more capable of learning on their own. This will require a paradigm shift in how science is taught in schools, and it will require a much easier-to-use outreach framework.
Second is that I think that science may actually need some evangelism. There are powers who bring things like Nepal to our attention. On the other hand, scientists seem notoriously adverse to their own public relations. I think this behavior is self-destructive. I can't guarantee that people will come flocking, but I have met a lot of people who think that what we do is neat, but can't find anything explaining about it. Part of this requires science to be better at reaching out to its public. You'll never get everybody, but you do have to make it easier to access.
Just as a note, I think scientific literacy has declined, but possibly only in a minor fashion, and I believe that this may be on a generation-length cycle. I do, however, not have any evidence of any sort to back that up.
Reply
I do a great deal of talking with curious members of the public, as do my colleagues. We actually do see the results in terms of the acceptance and support from most of the public. Of course there are always those who disagree, but that's not a bad thing. Actually we've surprised some parties by explaining the disagreements we have amongst ourselves, so that they have come to realize that we *don't* have all the answers and are learning as we go. The time commitment for this is quite staggering, however. Realistically it's also only effective on a local level, and frankly it cuts into our work time. Perhaps there needs to be new amalgamation of science and management as a career: the scientifically trained P.R. person.
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
I know that I find the current trend of streaming students who aren't destined for the sciences into a single general "science" course (as opposed to the individual disciplines) in high school troubling. In theory it teaches a little of chemistry, physics, and biology. While this is a benefit when only two sciences are actually required for graduation, so that one isn't completely neglected, I can't escape the (perhaps mistaken) conviction that neither biology, chemistry, or physics can be adequately taught without devoting at least a semester to each exclusively. I wish I had some effective solutions to offer to the dilemma, but aside from saying "Teach more! Teach better!" I don't know that the answer is, either.
Reply
Leave a comment