NationStates Jolt Archive

A post by Opal (sorry forgot the last half of the name)

Got me thinking, by telling people to keep thier arguments shorter cause people don't long complex arguments.

So this set me thinking,

1) what do you think the purpose of the public understanding of science is?

2) what do you think of the currnet implmentation (school and others)

3) do you think it matters?


Some of my own answers are

1) the point of the public understanding of sciense is not the make science simpler, but the public more intellegent, i think this often gotten backwards.

though this isn't to say their are some thing sciene subject are dreadfull for not so much technical terms as different highly specific meanings for the saem word

2) Not to bad but not brilliant, one worry to me is earlyer and early specialisation in schools leaving whole chunks missing from some people

3) Not understanding the way the world around us work? of course

Actually, if you knew more about me, I'm not a "non-scientist" and you should read more than one post by a person before deciding anything about them.

I merely made the post because I prefer scientific debates to be more simplistic as in tackling fewer issues at a time. You don't have to solve every scientific mystery in one post. If you debate one specific part of the issue and move from individual part to individual part then in the end make a summary of every thing you've pointed out, it will come of as much more logical and the public will be much more able to follow what you are saying, therefore, making them more intelligent. A person has a hard time learning from what they understand, therefore, conduct your scientific debates in a more logical fashion, and they'll learn more.

By the way, I don't like that you think of me as someone less intelligent than you (as you apparantly do). Especially when I see the way you type and spell. (Writing is a very important part of science. Why do you think scientists have to take English classes all the way through college even?)

i can't keep up with all your posts!

Sorry if you've taken offence none intended, if your the public and have a good (as you apparently do) understanding of science how could it be made better?

agreed calirty is nice, if this were a paper i was righting considerably more time would be spent on it?

thankfully from my point of veiw in the UK through degree level you don;t have to take engelish clases though you do have to do a fair ammount of righting, when i tidy myself up for presentation it turns out quite well. (thankheavns for spell checkers!)

But is would be way too long for this type of forum were things alter quickly and having spent the whole day righting i can't sum up much enargy, sorry if you can't follw things i've said - care to act as my editor?

i can't keep up with all your posts!

Sorry if you've taken offence none intended, if your the public and have a good (as you apparently do) understanding of science how could it be made better?

agreed calirty is nice, if this were a paper i was righting considerably more time would be spent on it?

thankfully from my point of veiw in the UK through degree level you don;t have to take engelish clases though you do have to do a fair ammount of righting, when i tidy myself up for presentation it turns out quite well. (thankheavns for spell checkers!)

But is would be way too long for this type of forum were things alter quickly and having spent the whole day righting i can't sum up much enargy, sorry if you can't follw things i've said - care to act as my editor?

What sets me as part of the public and not part of science?

balls sorry mis read the i'm not a non-scientist bit

got a bit lost in the double negatives

What defines the difference between "the public" and "the scientists" though? I mean, in any instance.

(By the way, you commented on the rate of my posts...they look pretty clean? Yes? I'm not using a spell checker, so there probably are some misspelllings [<- that words is spelled right...] but very few at any rate)

On the rate of the posts issue, sorry i repeat i cannot spell i find it fairly hard to work out if words are spelled badly at all so the rate has lttile to do with it (i'd nromally use word but i can't cause i haven't installed it yet)

As to the question of what defeins a scientist and a not scietist is interesting, the simplet defintion would be a scientist is someone who is working on orgional research.

A border one would be one were anyone who is interested in how the world works and uses the sceintific method to do so.

I suppose what i'd like people to aquire is more, for people to aquire a knowledge of sicietific methods and princapls than anyspecifc knowledge.

one example would be a acurate working knowledge of probability, in for example the risks inherint it taking or not taking the MMR vacine.

As to the question of what defeins a scientist and a not scietist is interesting, the simplet defintion would be a scientist is someone who is working on orgional research.

A border one would be one were anyone who is interested in how the world works and uses the sceintific method to do so.
The first definition is quite limiting and leaves out people whom you surely wouldn't disclude as scientists...
A lot of scientists in history have won Nobel prizes merely for proving someone else's theory, which I wouldn't consider original research. So in your first definition, you'd need to include scientists who are also working on proving, disproving, or adding to an already accepted theory.
Although, all that aside, I'm more apt to accept your second definition, which includes almost all of the world. In fact, essentially the only people not fitting under the second definition are the religious fanatics who are afraid that their supserstition might be proved wrong. Therefore, with the people not interested in science at all being the only people outside of science, there is no one in the "public" that scientists need bother talking to really as it's pretty much accepted that those people aren't willing to accept science at all...

The first definition is quite limiting and leaves out people whom you surely wouldn't disclude as scientists...
A lot of scientists in history have won Nobel prizes merely for proving someone else's theory, which I wouldn't consider original research. So in your first definition, you'd need to include scientists who are also working on proving, disproving, or adding to an already accepted theory.
Although, all that aside, I'm more apt to accept your second definition, which includes almost all of the world. In fact, essentially the only people not fitting under the second definition are the religious fanatics who are afraid that their supserstition might be proved wrong. Therefore, with the people not interested in science at all being the only people outside of science, there is no one in the "public" that scientists need bother talking to really as it's pretty much accepted that those people aren't willing to accept science at all...

yes or those who do not know the methods

altough replication of prvious expeirments is highly imporant, their have been several high profiles cases of people proving that previous work was infact all made up

I have to disagree with the idea that there is no one in the public that scientists need to talk to, especially in light of the crap the relgious fundamentalists like to spout. I actually thought it was interesting when I was talking to a colleague of mine who believes we have a moral obligation to explain to those in the general public what we are doing.

An example that is close to my work is the issue of stem cell research. The radical right has put so much false information out there that very few people actually understand what such research entails. Most people don't know that all stem cell research is not embryonic stem cell research. Most people don't know that most embryonic stem cell research is not in humans. And most people seem to think that in order to get embryonic stem cells, you have to make a baby and brutally murder it. And most of the people who believe all of that are not religious fundamentalists - they are simply people uneducated in the field that know only what they hear spouted in the media.

Many of those I have spoken to about my research or about embryonic stem cell research have changed their minds on it completely once it was truthfully explained to them.

I have to disagree with the idea that there is no one in the public that scientists need to talk to, especially in light of the crap the relgious fundamentalists like to spout. I actually thought it was interesting when I was talking to a colleague of mine who believes we have a moral obligation to explain to those in the general public what we are doing.

An example that is close to my work is the issue of stem cell research. The radical right has put so much false information out there that very few people actually understand what such research entails. Most people don't know that all stem cell research is not embryonic stem cell research. Most people don't know that most embryonic stem cell research is not in humans. And most people seem to think that in order to get embryonic stem cells, you have to make a baby and brutally murder it. And most of the people who believe all of that are not religious fundamentalists - they are simply people uneducated in the field that know only what they hear spouted in the media.

Many of those I have spoken to about my research or about embryonic stem cell research have changed their minds on it completely once it was truthfully explained to them.
There is a misunderstanding. My argument is that there is no one outside of the realm of science that we should show any science to because anyone outside of the realm of science will believe none of it. The reason I made this argument is because the definition of a scientist includes any one who is even slightly interested in why or how things in this world work...there are VERY few people who that discludes...

There is a misunderstanding. My argument is that there is no one outside of the realm of science that we should show any science to because anyone outside of the realm of science will believe none of it. The reason I made this argument is because the definition of a scientist includes any one who is even slightly interested in why or how things in this world work...there are VERY few people who that discludes...

I've never met a single person who meets that description, but I have met quite a few who would consider themselves non-scientists. I guess maybe it is the definition of scientist you are using that I disagree with.

Agreed one of the pressing desiers for the public understanding of science is to prevent that knee jerk type reactions.

Stem cell research is a very clear cut example, its benificial (potentialy very so) but at the same time with a nice sound bite people revolt, though i agree and have tried the same practice of convincing people other wise.

But how do you educate people to stop these type of problems, what is it we need to alter?

I've never met a single person who meets that description, but I have met quite a few who would consider themselves non-scientists. I guess maybe it is the definition of scientist you are using that I disagree with.
I'm just trying to paint a kind of black-and-white picture, and maybe "scientist" isn't the right word for what I'm trying to describe here...
Anyway, kind of along the same lines, Bill Maher (on Larry Kind Live again) last night was talking about how half of the world is led by a compass, a compass which works by laws of science and physics, etc. and the rest of the world kills a chicken, spills out its entrails, and reads its entrails and makes their decisions from that. I use the compass, and it is the people who use the compass that I'm talking about. Explaining scientific theory to readers of chicken entrails is a waste of time no doubt.

Agreed one of the pressing desiers for the public understanding of science is to prevent that knee jerk type reactions.

Stem cell research is a very clear cut example, its benificial (potentialy very so) but at the same time with a nice sound bite people revolt, though i agree and have tried the same practice of convincing people other wise.

But how do you educate people to stop these type of problems, what is it we need to alter?
Get your spell checker working?

But how do you educate people to stop these type of problems, what is it we need to alter?

That's a good question, and a hard one. I think one thing is that both sides (science and religion) need to stop acting like one is mutually exclusive of the other and then maybe the far right would dwindle, but I don't really see that happening.

So maybe what we need to do is stop teaching our kids to memorize in school and actually make them think. Unfortunately, we seem to be going the other way in that case too.