|
|
Return to 2000 Conference page SII's 2000 conference ended with a moderated discussion between all of the participants and focused on a few questions about SII. It was our intention that all participants have an opportunity to add their opinions to proceedings. This page is the condensed version of the discussion. Thanks are in order to Carly Riter, who carefully transcribed the discussion for all of us. It bears mentioning that these responses should not be construed as "answers" or validated programmatic aspects of the Institute. The discussion transcribed here reflects the opinions and beliefs held by participants at the 2000 conference. As such, this document may be internally inconsistent from point to point, but represents an attempt to accurately portray a conversation about 1) further defining the new field of "science integration" for the creation of scientifically valid personal worldviews and 2) the refinement of an organization dedicated to that mission. Any errors of omission or commission are mine. -Claudine Kavanagh SII Program Coordinator Questions:What problems and conflicts has this influence caused? What obstacles do you foresee in implementing these solutions in your community? What other tools or resources could SII offer to help you implement your ideas? QUESTION: How have the major concepts, insights, and developments of physical science influenced public perception of our place in the universe? DISCUSSION: There are many problems with the representation of science in the media. Where is the filter for the best science news? We must remember that we don't come by a scientific understanding of the world around us by innate processes. We all must learn how to think scientifically "somewhere:" For many people, the media is the best place to learn science ideas. But are media sources representing "good" science thinking? Science news still carries the stigma of being "quirky" or "geeky" side clips, that don't _really_ connect with the rest of the news. Science news on the other end of the spectrum has become "entertainment oriented." Where is the media representation of the bridge between science and usefulness? There can / should be different ways of relating to science that are more than "single issue" representations. There could be representations of science that relate to and address social and cultural issues of difference and accommodate them all so that science is of interest for the purposes of usefulness and education. Another dilemma described was the relationship between public interest in science and accessibility of good science education. Are scientists a victim of their own success? As the reach of scientific discoveries goes farther and farther away from the typical "everyday experience," who is capable of translating these findings for the rest of humanity with little science background? Scientists themselves need a broader education. This proposal goes counter to the current method of training career scientists. As the current education track is planned, one becomes a scientist through a narrow selection of coursework, while the broader education is geared towards non-scientists. Humanities coursework require,emts are typically seen as being "marginal" to "real" scientists. One needs a "research" degree in order to do "teaching." Schools of Education are not typically seen as allies in this issue. There isn't a clear educational path for preprofessionals who are interested in assisting the translation of scientific ideas to general audiences, and broadening science education. Scientists must release the stigma of "failed" scientists doing educational work, and build a broader educational goals into scientist training.
QUESTION: What problems and conflicts has this influence caused? DISCUSSION: Science is also frequently described as being in conflict with commonly held religious beliefs. The discussion group felt that science need not be in conflict with religious attitudes or beliefs. Do people want truth or certainty? Most scientists want certainty, so we must shift the science paradigm to wanting truth. There is a humility to good science, but what about meaning? Certainty has always been given meaning, so now how shall we establish meaning by using truth? Human nature is to cling to certainty, and it is hubris for scientists to think they are above certainty. Good science seeks truth. Can we count on science for a trustworthy worldview if it is always changing, as it should? How many people would use science for the creation of their own worldview, knowing that they must recreate that worldview with each successive scientific paradigm shift? Can we perhaps find certainty in knowing that the truth will change, so that the truth becomes more truthful? For every part of the world that is revealed to us today, there is still so much more that we don't know or understand or haven't even seen yet. Science hasn't had an impact to a great extent so far, ultimately. But now we are experiencing this impact through cloning, xenotransplantation, artificial life, etc. We may be at the point of a cultural phase transition about the role of science in our everyday lives, and this point of contact may be ethical questions about the appropriate use of these new technologies. Scientists have been almost deified in society, particularly in the area of health technologies. Most people don't understand the root processes of these new technologies, but are interested in using life extending technology for their own purposes. Perhaps a more active role is needed in order to bridge the gap of alienation between science ideas and public perception of science. Of course, increased funding is important, but this active role the public can play allows a connection and a real understanding of science concepts and how science works. A perception of survival for many people doesn't include science. Again, we must allow a role for all of the various classes or social groups and cultures to be included in the science integration movement. Obviously, this would mean the inclusion of additional agenda or issues that would require address. When we put together all the powers of science, we can commit great follies. Our social justice system must keep up with science. It takes a great humility so that science does not blindly probe into the unknown. We can use humility to provide stability with a balance of science and progressive ethics. Collective wisdom needs to happen and excitement is the driving force in science. There is very little attention being paid to the "big picture." Is this not unrelated to the excitement the general public feels about "entertainment" versions of science stories in the news? We need to regard a fostering of the "bigger picture" for everyone as a focus of this new institute. What about the inherent dangers of unchecked progress? Initially, it is very difficult to distinguish between helpful or harmful scientific technologies. There need to be barriers in order to slow science progress down , so that ethical considerations can be involved in the process. Again the "bigger picture" needs to be considered and prioritized. Perhaps the bigger picture is easier to see when it includes the individual. "How does cloning relate to my world?" or "How does genetically modified food affect me?" would be a typical questions. This would help people to think about the DNA inside of them and genetic interactions with the outside world. This helps the public make informed, active decisions to favor or oppose biotechnology in their food. This may provide a "checks and balances" version of scientific progress. We cannot outlaw scientific progress, but we can use the concepts of science integration to check its growth for maximum possible public good. The nature of systems may be moved by selfishness. This is merely the natural progression of science.
QUESTION: What can be done to facilitate better incorporation of physical science insights into our everyday lives and perspectives, in a positive and constructive way? DISCUSSION: Again the media: where do we get our science education? Some say it might be in the schools, where is the most effective vehicle for science learning? Scientific insights affect what we do in "non science" areas, such as law. Scientists must claim a broader education first. (Can we wait for this?). Science as a whole must prove its worth socially for adequate media coverage. Realistically, do we really expect well rounded scientists? (So why rely on scientists to change?) Each field has its own misconceptions about other fields. Different fields must integrate for a big picture of integration using all resources for a well rounded professional. It is up to each group (biologists, physicists, etc.) to reveal its self defined essence to other groups for broader integration. Maybe science is integrated already? Many English classes read Feynman's short books for understanding the science perspective. A conceptual flowchart is needed. Science integration = education + practical applications + recreational science + worldview. Ideally, this flowchart would provide examples of each. We need to create a communication link to the whole of society. Whatever emerges, does. In our necessarily pluralistic society, people are using science erroneously. Many refer to the cultural authority provided by scientific insights, without a common understanding of the content of that science. People are going to create their personal worldviews anyway, but they can at least use science to assist in the formation of a rational aspect of that worldview. Today, most newspapers carry an astrology section for their readers' daily horoscope. This information wouldn't be included in a rational worldview. There needs to be a dedicated communicator to the general public who is scientifically literate. Would this person be trained as a scientists, or would it be someone from a communications of humanities background who learns science informally? What is the role of the civic scientist? We need to dispel the concept that science takes away meaning and freedom.
QUESTION: What obstacles do you foresee in implementing these solutions in your community? DISCUSSION: Communication is the major obstacle. How can we find someone who's qualified to communicate the messages of science to the broader public, for increased understanding. Internet may be one possible solution. Since we're connected to this global network system, the avenues of science understanding are everywhere. But any use of the internet requires immense critical thinking skills, so that the reader may independently filter information for validity. What about prepared "sound bites" for the press. These would be packages of ideas that the news sources could use for interpretation of scientific ideas.
QUESTION: What other tools or resources could SII offer to help you implement your ideas? DISCUSSION: Prepare an edited volume of SII ideas, because that can define a field. A book is more accessible to the public, but scientific communities would read established journals. Take the ideas from the conference and develop them into a volume. It provides a legitimacy of the people who attended the conference. That would create the new field that creates patterns with science and everyday life. The narrower you define the field, the stronger the field will be. Science integration may be too broad at this point, but will grow stronger if we narrow it. There is an objection that the Institute could be labeled with pseudo science groups, so that would argue against narrowing the field. Perhaps, if we could provide a list of exemplars, that would help us define the field. There needs to be better access to SOLID science information, so people can make legitimate worldviews. Provide it in a way that promotes discussion, by inviting people to talk and think together in discussion. Define the group well. Do this by keeping the science core as "classical" science and doing something new with that information. |
