Steven_R
Tommy Vercetti Fan Club
- Jul 17, 2013
- 4,852
- 930
- 245
This weekend, I watched a video of a talk by Barbara Forrest, PhD, about Intelligent Design's motives and what they are likely to do next. It's pretty much the same points we know about, so there isn't really anything new, but if you're interested in watching it here it is: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LL4_x9KRVj8]"Inside Creationism's Trojan Horse" - YouTube[/ame]
Anyways, during the Q&A she brings a up a great point about how scientists should be engaged in this debate, but aren't, in large part because they are busy doing science. We do have a problem with scientific literacy being poor in this country, and seemingly getting worse. I think we can come to some consensus about why, namely:
1) Science is hard and inaccessible. It's not something that can be understood in a few sentences and catch phrases. It takes real time, effort, and energy to understand, and even then to understand it at more than an everyman's level requires years of education. I'm a physics student and while I can read physics journals and have a pretty good understanding of what I'm reading, I'm hopelessly lost in a biology article or a chemistry paper, so what chance does the average citizen have?
2) Politics. The God Squad push to keep evolution out of the classroom, the Watermelons push to keep any criticism of climate change out of professional journals (much less in the public debate). Nobody is talking nuclear power. Politics uses science as a tool and goes out of its way to stifle anyone who says anything contrary to the party line. If science treated as a threat, how do we get science back in the public consciousness?
Case in point: This moron is a member of the Texas State School Board and she is arguing against the Big Bang. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5YWJAgJm2Q]"Cargill: The universe isn't expanding" - YouTube[/ame]
She is a "science educator" and a Young Earth Creationist. Yeah, seriously. So her politics dictates what she's willing to teach the kids, even when whatever training she does have shows her evidence to the contrary (nevermind the fact that she is not a physicist or astronomer and really is unqualified to say they are wrong).
3) Scientists are horrible at explaining science. Going back to point 1, science is hard. But the people who understand it best don't get in the public eye to explain it (obvious exceptions being people like NDT and Hawking and Bill Nye, the Science Guy). Really, who can blame them? Every minute spent explaining science is a minute not spent in a lab, or writing, or teaching, or pandering for grant money. But even when they are up to the task, putting stuff in laymen's terms risks watering down the discussion to the point that the waters can get muddied by double talking and cherry picking anti-science types.
So, what can be done to get science into people's lives and to get students really excited about STEM fields?
Anyways, during the Q&A she brings a up a great point about how scientists should be engaged in this debate, but aren't, in large part because they are busy doing science. We do have a problem with scientific literacy being poor in this country, and seemingly getting worse. I think we can come to some consensus about why, namely:
1) Science is hard and inaccessible. It's not something that can be understood in a few sentences and catch phrases. It takes real time, effort, and energy to understand, and even then to understand it at more than an everyman's level requires years of education. I'm a physics student and while I can read physics journals and have a pretty good understanding of what I'm reading, I'm hopelessly lost in a biology article or a chemistry paper, so what chance does the average citizen have?
2) Politics. The God Squad push to keep evolution out of the classroom, the Watermelons push to keep any criticism of climate change out of professional journals (much less in the public debate). Nobody is talking nuclear power. Politics uses science as a tool and goes out of its way to stifle anyone who says anything contrary to the party line. If science treated as a threat, how do we get science back in the public consciousness?
Case in point: This moron is a member of the Texas State School Board and she is arguing against the Big Bang. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5YWJAgJm2Q]"Cargill: The universe isn't expanding" - YouTube[/ame]
She is a "science educator" and a Young Earth Creationist. Yeah, seriously. So her politics dictates what she's willing to teach the kids, even when whatever training she does have shows her evidence to the contrary (nevermind the fact that she is not a physicist or astronomer and really is unqualified to say they are wrong).
3) Scientists are horrible at explaining science. Going back to point 1, science is hard. But the people who understand it best don't get in the public eye to explain it (obvious exceptions being people like NDT and Hawking and Bill Nye, the Science Guy). Really, who can blame them? Every minute spent explaining science is a minute not spent in a lab, or writing, or teaching, or pandering for grant money. But even when they are up to the task, putting stuff in laymen's terms risks watering down the discussion to the point that the waters can get muddied by double talking and cherry picking anti-science types.
So, what can be done to get science into people's lives and to get students really excited about STEM fields?
Last edited:
