science, education, generalizations

I recently linked to an article from the University of Maryland's student newspaper where the author describes a strange encounter between elite scientists and a creationist, and uses that encounter to make the generalization that scientists are out of touch with the general public. He goes on to defend science in general and suggest that scientists should more actively do the same.

I agree with the author that "Everyone who considers himself a rationalist should take just a few hours out of his life to learn the responses to the most common attacks on science." His point that the public is often more likely to be moved by an eloquent speaker than sound logic is an important one.

The Monitors chimed in with a great response that I want to highlight:

Although this isn't the best outlet to reach the masses, I have to say that, as both an "insider" and an "outsider" in the science world, there are many misconceptions about science and education.

The first of which is that scientists are not interested in education. Scientists train graduate, doctoral, and post-doctoral students at a large rate. 26,000 Ph.D.'s were awarded in 2004 to science and engineering fields, this doesn't include medical doctors, psychiatrists, educators, etc who make up another 15,000. Do these students come out of the woodwork? No. They are trained from the fourth year of undergraduate until they finish their studies.

Another misconception is that scientists do not care about K-12 education and public outreach. First of all, it is not necessarily a scientist's ambition, nor place, to take part in such activities. After all, when's the last time your friendly neighborhood investment banker came and gave a kid-friendly lecture series at the local elementary school? Sometimes the subject matter isn't so appropriate, or the person isn't so qualified. However, many professional scientists do indeed take part in such activities, and they have as much passion as any teacher would. Scientists need students, they cannot function without them. They need their time, they need their insight, and they need the additional funding they bring with them. But undergrads don't just pop out of thin air, either, they come form high schools. Every physicist, chemist, astronomer, biologist, whoever, that I have spoken with, and I've spoken with hundreds, understands this, and many do their part for outreach. The Hubble Space Telescope Science Institute spends over $6M/year on public outreach. Countless programs system-wide incorporate public outreach components.

Another misconception is that kids don't know science because scientists don't want to teach them. A child is more likely to learn physics from an English or history major than a person with training in physical sciences. Conversely, a student is far less likely to learn English or history from a physical scientist than from an English/history major. This suggests a very powerful notion: there is a belief that scientists are not as capable of teaching English/history as an English/history major is of teaching physical sciences. Not only does this help explain the public disconnect with science, it also depicts a K-12 educational system that has lost its interest in teaching science. Further, you cannot expect one trained in English or history to be able to communicate the archaics of physical sciences.

So why is it such a surprise that there is a resurgence of anti-evolutionism? It's a relatively simple linear trend, just look at the time between now and the Renaissance. As scientific literacy increased, people became less and less reliant upon religious myths to explain events. For instance, the Chief Seismologist of Turkey is trying to assuage public fears that an earthquake is imminent due to the coming total solar eclipse at the end of March. Turkey is a far less scientifically cognizant society. Charles Darwin waited to publish his theory of evolution until his death, and was buried in an unmarked grave to avoid the desecration of his body. And then there's Scopes, etc. Until the age of invention, most advances in mechanics or chemistry, aside from items used for warfare of course, were basically considered witchcraft.

I'm rambling, but if we want to avoid ridiculous assertions like "intelligent design," which is only semantically different from creationism, then we had better dispel the idea of the scientist from the 1920's with crazy hair and in a white lab coat who's cross-breeding nuclear weapons and puppies. The problem lies at the root of society, and that's where the education has to begin.

A lot of good stuff there. I very strongly agree with the last sentence, and that is why I'm considering going back to school with a career goal of encouraging people to think and act more rationally.

I'm not sure how out of touch the science world is with the public, but I agree that a huge part of that community is very concerned about education and the popular perception of science. I'd guess that the 1920's style weirdos with the crazy hair that the Diamondback commentator encountered are the exception, not the rule.