Archived
E-mail Discussion List
|
|
Return to E-mail Discussion page Previous in threadHi everyone, Let's see if I can summarize some of the key issues/questions that have been raised so far on the science literacy question, and add a few more. Then maybe we can think about how to organize the points to provide a productive direction for action. In answer to the first question (Why is it important for the "average person" to know about science?), the key themes so far seem to be: - It's part of being well-rounded and able to understand and participate in references and connections that are part of our culture. (much like knowing current political events, highlights of history, etc.) - It helps people make decisions on the basis of scientific evidence, and helps them avoid being conned by pseudoscience practitioners. Medical care and environmental issues are two good examples here. (A small aside: The issue of why people are drawn to pseudoscience is very important, and is something I think we should return to as a future discussion topic). - Critical thinking and problem-solving skills, central to science, are valuable in many areas of life. - Knowledge of science can change how we perceive the world, and this perception impacts decisions we make in all areas of life. This is the main reason I care so much about having people understand science. So, I'll elaborate on my perspective on this: It seems to me we should recognize that we, with our thoughts, feelings, hopes, and goals, are part of this universe described by science. Our ideas about how we want to develop as people and as a society are intertwined with what we believe about how this universe basically works. So we ought to be doing science and teaching it with the conscious objective of building up and modifying our individual "worldviews" of "how we fit into things." After all, it is really IDEAS, what people BELIEVE is important for them to do, that mostly shape society. No matter what kind of society we live in, the context for our lives is set by the universe which produces us and gives us the constraints and possibilities we experience. We all are made of elements that once were in the cores of stars; we all find that certain materials are necessary to keep us warm or to keep us from being hungry; we all find that certain kinds of vibrations in the air (called music) can make us feel certain ways. Ultimately, I think, we must know what that context is, what the properties of nature tell us about what it is "trying to do," in order to make our lives fully meaningful. Science can be an important tool for uncovering this context. Without it, I think, people's efforts are seriously handicapped in this area. - Economic growth is often tied to scientific progress, and a "science-literate" workforce is needed to maintain this growth (and "compete" in the world marketplace?). The average standard of living has improved a great deal as a result of scientific progress, and some level of science literacy overall may be needed in order to maintain this standard of living. - Related to the last point, national defense has depended a great deal on science, especially since WWII. In fact, the primary justification for the extensive federal funding of basic science research we have today is that its importance to national defense was clearly recognized after WWII (NSF, DOE, etc. all started as part of the wave of support for national science that followed the war). So, we need a workforce and military personnel who are science-literate. (I suppose the defense issue was behind much of the science education push that followed Sputnik?) The answer to the second question (what should they know about science?) will obviously depend a great deal on the answer to the first. The necessary knowledge is different for different purposes. So eventually, we'll probably want to tie the answers to the 2 questions together. Anyway, here's what I see so far as answers to this second question: - They should learn that science isn't as remote, abstract, and intimidating as they may have previously believed. This point is related to Eric's comments in reply to Amanda: > I worry that much of science, as it is currently taught, > is indeed remote and abstract. In high school I had to > memorize all the bones and muscles in the body, as well > as all the elements in the periodic table -- it struck me > as rather unimportant. Further, think about how much of a > basic physics course is abstract. You spend lots of time > learning technical definitions of things such as "force" and > "energy", and memorizing equations, in order to analyze simple, > artificial situations. Brian pointed out that some memorization and terminology are essential for understanding: > If one does not develop the specialized vocabulary of a field, how can one > become conversant in the ideas that it presents to us. You certainly know > what electrons, protons, and neutrons ARE, to a much greater extent than > the sixth grader who has just been taught the definitions and shown the > Bohr model of the atom. But I suspect that you started your journey > towards understanding subatomic particles in the same place (perhaps > earlier than sixth grade): accepting the "facts" as presented, first by > memorizing them, then by making connections to other parts of your > experience and understanding of the universe. In your remark above, it > appears that you are frustrated by only seeing people being taught the > vocabulary but not the meaning and implications of that vocabulary on their > worldviews and/or political and economic choices. I would assert that one > must go through that first exercise, and accept the fact that many do not > move beyond it. I suspect that some of the lack of progress is due to a > lack of understanding by science teachers (and their concominant sin of not > applying appropriate teaching methods), but I suspect that the larger > responsibility falls upon us scientists for not for actively convincing > society of the importance and value of good scientific literacy and > critical thinking. People can operate just fine in our society without > knowing much about science. The fact that they could live better if they > payed more attention to the subject and its methods is accepted by you and > I but most remain unconvinced. Why? It seems to me that we should, as Eric suggested, be rethinking how these courses are taught. Two key questions come to my mind here: 1) Again, what is our goal in teaching science? The approach depends critically on the outcome we're after. I'd suggest that if we're going after an appreciation and respect for what science can do, and trying to change people's attitudes about science and its relevance to them, then we can afford to go very light on vocabulary and definition. (On the other hand, if we're training future scientists, they may need to know the language first, in order to converse easily with others in their field). It would be nice if all students knew the Bohr model of the atom. But more important for most, I think, is that they understand the general questions that led to the Bohr model. I'd like them to have spent some time thinking about the question of what things are made of, how finely you can break up matter, and how in the world you go about discovering how small the pieces are and what they look like. In my astronomy classes I always start things out by having students go out and look at the stars, and try to figure out methods for determining their distances. Once they've wrestled with the question, the distances I give them later in the class have a clearer meaning and context. And in fact, I'd much rather they remember the process of how we tried to figure out the distances, than that they actually remember the numbers. This may be something like what Keith Devlin had in mind in suggesting that we teach "science awareness" rather than "science literacy?" 2) In what order to we present things? The order of presentation clearly matters. Maybe the vocabulary can come later, when the students have already generated questions they care about, so that the information they learn won't seem boring and unimportant in the way Eric described. By focusing on "meaningless" vocabulary in the early stages, we may turn people off so they won't stay around long enough to find out that there is real meaning and interest behind the terminology. In any case, it seems that an important topic for discussion is the balance and order of "questions" and "answers" that will both keep people engaged and achieve the level of knowledge that we're after in the end. The details of how this is done probably have a strong influence on people's attitudes about science. - They should have a basic understanding of the scientific method, how we draw conclusions, what we mean by evidence, what makes us so confident about some knowledge claims but not others, etc. This would also give them a more complete picture of how science works, which might help counteract some of the media problems Eric pointed out: > I think a key problem is that the media tends to overstate > scientific results. Especially with medical science, all results > somehow appear conclusive or revolutionary. The newsmedia tend (understandably) to focus on the new and exciting and different, so they focus on the "edges" and make everything revolutionary. If you don't have the big picture of how a subject has evolved, you get the impression that scientists are completely changing their minds every few weeks! The big bang theory is a good example of this: Even though the basic picture is well understood and widely accepted (the universe IS expanding, WAS once extremely hot, etc.), there are many interesting details that are still very uncertain (e.g. how fast it's expanding, how long ago (10-20 billion years) it was in this very hot state, etc.) Yet to read many news articles about it, you'd think scientists were ready to scrap the whole theory everytime someone finds it is expanding a little faster or slower than previously thought. It's as if you saw a car coming toward you at a speed you measured as 60 mph, and then later concluded that the car isn't moving at all, because a different measurement recorded the speed as 55 mph. A better overall understanding of how science works and how theories are refined might help combat this kind of problem. - They should have some direct experience with the fun and excitement of science, of seeing something amazing about how the world works. - They should gain basic skills in critical thinking, problem solving, math (especially statistics?) - Some kind of overview or highlights of the key findings of science – big ideas that they will remember, at least vaguely, for a long time. Have I left out anything important? So far only the "scientists" have been talking - those of you on the list who are not trained as scientists, what do you think? Are we covering the reasons you feel science is important, and the skills you think are most valuable? All perspectives are very welcome, in trying to figure out what most needs to be done. This discussion, by the way, is turning out to be very timely. I met yesterday with some folks from Science Service (the organization that publishes Science News). They're planning a major public awareness campaign next year, to "raise awareness across America of the vital importance of science literacy." Part of this program will be a series of nationally televised "summits" to discuss science literacy. So there's an opportunity for us to be involved in these, if we'd like to, and bring the ideas we come up with into wider view. Todd |
