We hear a lot about American children's poor performance in science. But we really ought to be worried about the scientific ignorance of American adults.
Most of our fellow citizens can't describe the structure of the atom. They maintain that humans and other animals have existed in their present form since the beginning of time, and deny evolution. They believe in the efficacy of scientifically unproven medical interventions, such as pills that promise to melt away fat, and the legitimacy of ESP.
Why are Americans so uninformed about science, and so doubtful of solid scientific findings? This mistrust of science is rooted in a misunderstanding of how science works.
Science is evidence based, and provides a continuing understanding of complex natural phenomena. Our understanding is constantly evolving and continually improving.
Evidence based reasoning underpins all scientific thinking and it involves testing hypotheses or theories against data. Validating a theory requires replicable measurements from independent groups with different equipment and methods of analysis. Convergence of evidence is critical to the acceptance of a scientific idea.
Scientific knowledge is by its nature provisional. This is due to the fact that as time goes on, with the invention of better instruments, more data and better data hone our understanding further. Social, cultural, economic and political context are relevant to our understanding of how science works.
Progress in science occurs in fits and starts, and paradigm shifts occur when evidence can be marshaled to support a new point of view. Science is practiced in a climate of inherent uncertainty and the process of verifying a hypothesis or theory is never-ending. Since over time evidence may accumulate to support or falsify a hypothesis, disagreements are essential to the honing of an acceptable theory.
The reality of how science works is in sharp contrast to the way most Americans seem to see it--perhaps as definitive, time-limited, and based on speculation or assertion.
While this misunderstanding of science is a longstanding phenomenon and not new, it has been aggravated by a new development: the scientific process now occurs in the full view of the public at large in this age of information sharing. This has led to a rush to interpret the frictions in what is simply the normal process of contestation prior to acceptance, as evidence that the theory being contested is not valid.
A case in point is the debate over climate change. Scientists do not disagree on the facts or the data but do so in the interpretation. Given the complexity of the climate-modeling problem, it is unsurprising that there are uncertainties -- for instance the best 23 models predict a range in rise of the global mean temperature by anywhere between 1.1 - 6.4 oC by 2100. The major uncertainty hinges on the need to include the future emissions of carbon dioxide into the modeling. While no one disputes the current measurements of carbon dioxide emissions levels in the atmosphere, it's in the estimates of the anticipated growth rate that disagreement lies.
What we see playing out now is a clash of values, differences that arise from our commitments to and the sense of stewardship we as humans feel for the environment today and for the future. This clash of values is real and needs to be confronted but it is apart from the scientific facts.
If American adults don't know the structure of the atom, that's a blot on our national scientific literacy. But if American adults don't understand how vaccines work or how carbon emissions are heating up the earth, we have a catastrophe on our hands.
What do we do about this? Some of this mistrust of science is rooted in the lack of appreciation and first-hand experience of how science works. Part of the blame can be attributed to my community, that of scientists, we have not been very effective in translating and communicating our practices, the results of our research and its implications to the public in clear terms.
Outreach had not been high on our agendas until recently but this is changing rapidly with a large number of scientists writing and engaging more actively in the public sphere. Also we have failed to clearly delineate the nature of scientific explanations in contrast to other kinds of explanations that are not supported by data.
Insufficient communication and engagement, in my opinion has contributed to the lack of understanding of the practice of science and the nature of scientific discovery.
In addition, politicians and policymakers need to explain how they're using scientific evidence to make their decisions.
And last but not the least, we need to improve science education in schools so that we produce a new generation of scientifically literate adults who are able to grapple with, and solve, the big problems confronting us. On this there is near unanimous agreement, for 97 percent of voters in a recent poll making sure American students receive a world-class education in math and science ranked second only to fixing the nation's financial health .
Rev. Jim Ball: The New York Times Gets Played By Climate Deniers
That's funny!
The numbers of prime interest (pardon the unintentional pun!) to them are the numbers on the bank statements for their re-election campaigns.
Science? That's just a talking point to most of them, to be used, or abused.
Inventor Ray Kurzweil said that one of the biggest opponents he's faced in the fully electric engine race is the auto industries who have invested for many years in the Science of combustion engines, if tomorrow a fully electric 350 hp engine became available, it would destroy the combustion engine auto industry. They suppress the science while at the same time try to develop it so they can be the first to take the profit from it.
Eh?
I assume you meant something other than what you wrote!
In reality Science does what religion and philosophy have been attempting to do throughout history, which is trying to unify our knowledge about our existence, Science just does a far far better job at doing the unifying and knowledge part.
The problem too is that the problems we face today, i.e. climate change, are really complex problems and I have doubts about the education system's ability to bring kids to the level of understanding needed to make them see the science clearly.
And then we have religion, that apparently excuses every and all behavior as long as you "Accept Christ", and seems to teach that this world doesn't matter but the "next" one does. If you believe something like this, how on Earth will anyone convince you to take stewardship seriously?
Too complex!
Also, it should be said how science changes. The long established scientific theories -- Newtonian mechanics, quantum mechanics, evolution, molecular chemistry, etc -- are not going anywhere. Where science has controversy is on the frontier, where we are still collecting data and trying to understand what is going on. Things like evolution are no controversial, they are solid facts. What tends to happen in scientists study things they don't understand. There is a healthy debate and attempt to study the phenomenon where scientists make claims, argue, change their minds, etc. Once they figure out something and have a large body of long standing supporting data, then they have facts. Moreover, in studying new situations, we gain a deeper understanding of the world. Newtonian mechanics, under certain hypothesis within certain error tolerances, is correct. But there is more to the story like quantum mechanics. Science is changing but it isn't like scientists are clueless nerds that don't know anything. Science does in a very useful and satisfying sense give us facts.
Nothing ever worth knowing came in a quick soundbite or 1 minute explanation.
It's very simple, science is more reliable than your BS first hand experience. Science changes, but only really at the frontier. What science knows, such as evolution, is not controversial, it is fact. The frontier is where the controversy is at. Now, there's your soundbites. It takes more time to then explain why that is. Get over your ADD.
I have concluded 90% of people are not sane.
Yep!
It never ceases to amaze me the outright arrogance a lot of people have, in regards to science. If you don't practice this stuff every day for your job, aren't able to bounce your ideas off peers in the field, don't have the resources at your disposal to conduct research... how can you possibly expect to know better than the people that do? There's really no other way to describe it, other than arrogance. With a nation of C-average science students, 99% of whom don't do this stuff for their jobs... it strikes me as outright suicide that we treat the scientific community with such disregard. I'm not a religious person at all... but we will absolutely reap what we sow.
Seven billion..............eight billion........
.....................................................................nine billion.......
.................I don't think we'll make it much past nine billion - then................
.............................................................................!
Because when new evidence arises, the earlier conclusions need to be modified to comport with the new evidence. This drives people who have a need for certainty nuts. They then attack science and scientists, saying, "See science and what scientists do is all bogus baloney". The problem is those people's misunderstanding, and their need for certainty -- not science.
For many things, the conclusion may very well be the way it is (the sun rises in the east and sets in the west). As long as the conclusions work for us because we never see any conflicting anomalies, that's what counts. Beyond that, nothing is gained by closing our minds, insisting upon finality. All that does is apply dogma to science; and that shuts down pursuit of new discovery.
Words are a human invention, with the purpose of describing the world and what it's made of. You can change the word, but the thing it describes doesn't change. A rock is still a hard piece of a certain material, even if you call it a tree.