Why the gulf between lay people and physicists?

[ZapperZ]

Why is there a gulf between lay people and physicists?

As someone who have been involved in several outreach programs, had given tours to the general public of an accelerator facility, including several open houses, and have hosted several public seminars, I've had a lot of interactions with the public in general. I've also had to deal with a lot of discussions both on here, and also hearing public hearings where various members of the public voiced their opinions on several issues related to physics and physics facilities. I am also an active member of APS's Forum on Physics and Society.

So my answer to that question are these:

1. The general public's understanding of science and its importance is not based on a true understanding of what science is, but rather on a superficial, shallow understanding of what it is, how it is done, and why it is important. This means that the support for science is based on a rather shaky ground that can easily be eroded by something that is bright and shinny.

http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.com/2006/10/you-need-to-be-perky-shallow-and.html

2. The public has little ability to distinguish between scientific evidence and anecdotal evidence. We have seen many examples of this where the use of anecdotal evidence seems to be sufficient as a valid reason for something. This is especially prevalent in the medical field.

http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.com/2011/01/more-evidence-public-cant-tell.html

3. Now, even if the public understands and are aware of a data set, they are often confused and do not realize that correlation does not imply causation. So you have A increasing with B. This only establishes that A and B appear to be correlated. It doesn't mean that A causes B, or B causes A. But in public arguments, such connections are often made without any degree of justification. Just listen to any political speech if you don't believe me. In science, understanding something doesn't stop at finding a correlation between two variables. One has to establish a cause-and-effect connection between the two. This is why experimental science is crucial because such cause-and-effect can be tested and verified.

4. Finally, even when faced with the scientific evidence, the public often put their beliefs and faiths ahead of such evidence. In other words, you could make them understand the scientific evidence till you're blue, and they will still not change their minds.

http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.com/2010/09/public-weighs-values-more-than-facts.html

Scientists can only do so much in trying to engage the public. This is a two-way street, a handshake. It requires the public making a reasonable effort to also understand science and not simply wait to be spoon-fed.

Zz.

 

[collinsmark]

This subject reminds me of:

http://www.explosm.net/db/files/Comics/Kris/same.png
[Image from http://explosm.net/comics/3557/]

 

[Bandersnatch]

This subject reminds me of:

To be fair, I bet most scientists get involved with science for its sexy butt. Love comes later on, once you're past the fascination phase, been together through thick and thin, raised a paper or two, maybe built an academic position.
I'm not sure it's entirely reasonable to blame other people for shallowly checking out your sexy spouse.

 

[WWGD]

Maybe we should qualify these statements purporting to explain the gap, to refer to people who have been educated ( at a high-school level) in the U.S. There was an interesting show on C-Span's book TV exploring high-school-level education in many countries and trying to explain why US students do so poorly by many measures, compared to students in many other countries. Finland seems to do particularly-well at educating its high-school students; it would be interesting to see if this gulf in physics knowledge and knowledge in other areas also exists in Finland and/or in other countries that do a better job of educating its people at this level.

 

[SixNein]

At one level it's obvious--physics is mathematically difficult, with areas near its frontiers forever inaccessible to educated persons of normal intellectual potential.

Yet outside the hard sciences, the general level of math skill is atrocious. Typical citizens could learn much more math and science than they do, without being geniuses, yet they don't. It's like you're either an expert, or completely ignorant of science.

I don't intend to parrot a common lament, but to ask why this is apparently so.

The limitations of the human mind and lifespans are probably the most accessible explanations. One can't be an expert in all things so a decision must be made to narrow the focus. There is a sort of psedo-intellectualism to these notions. For example, why can't English graduates be masters of their field and mine too? The reverse formulation of the question isn't proposed.