Well, I would have to say E=mc(2) has spread most thoroughly through popular curlture, although not as itself but as a symbol of smartness and science. From this and other symbols that float around on posters and
postcards, the attitude that science is something mystic, technical and outside of most people's reach, except as a symbol, is developed.

My personal opinion is that people like this take and do not want to exchange it for a more realistic view of science which may kill some of the mysticism and require a lot more work and sobriety.

So, in general, science integration will only accrue those people who want the more real touch with science and who want to find the mystery by digging deaper not by skimming more and more superficially.

These people are fewer than the skimmers and sometimes I think it may look like there are a lot of hungry souls out there for science news and insight when, in fact, they're just skimmers and would not take up the information even if they had constant, urged-on access to it. I think we can even see this within the population of our workshops and lectures. Although the skimmers there are not as many as they are on the street.

So, that is what I think of what I consider the most popular idea of science. E=mc(2) stands as a symbol and nothing else and tells people who admire it that all of science is just as cryptic, which they, in fact enjoy very much. Sometimes it is more pleasant to admire than to know what you are admiring and I think people with a vague interest in science, those who can recite the E relationship, are happier to have this distance than to enter any scientific world. I think they would not touch it even if we were to hand it to them.

maya

On Fri, 6 Oct 2000, Science Integration Institute wrote:
> Hi,
>
> One of major the discussions at the conference centered on the ways in which
> big ideas from science seep out into broader culture (accurately or not).
> We talked both about the ideas themselves (views of the earth from space and
> the feelings evoked by these images, the ability to clone life, the notion
> that science/technology can or cannot solve all our problems...) and the
> channels by which those ideas were spread (mass media, school, literature,
> etc.).
>
> So I'd like to see if we can develop this discussion further here, with two
> questions:
>
> 1) What ideas from or attitudes about science have most clearly spread into
> broader culture?
>
> 2) Why have these insights spread while others have not? (Here I'm trying
> to identify what happens at the dissemination channels that leads to either
> accurate or inaccurate notions being spread.)
>
> Todd