Science and the general public

Ryan_m_b

Agreed, pseudoscience does public communication far better than real science. That needs to change!

NewtonianAlch

What you're alluding to is very general; I am not claiming people need to know specifics of fields. As for the situation with your teachers in school is largely irrelevant as it's not necessarily the case in every school, or even a large amount of schools.

My point however convoluted it may have come across was that, there are some very basic ideas or points that people seem to lack. I don't take delight in treating people as half-wits nor do I try to act "knowledgeable". Please don't make it seem like we must all hold hands and try to "understand" ignorance.

There are plenty of things we are not experts or considered knowledgeable in but have a basic grasp of. What I was describing were situations that is extremely commonplace and is far beyond a level of even having a basic grasp of.

To think that science is fake, or to not know what "engineering" is largely idiotic.

NewtonianAlch

That's probably because it's more "fun", "easier to understand" or "interesting"

I honestly don't see it changing unless there's some kind of entertainment value to it, which has been tried over and over again.

Pseudosciences are part of trends, science is not a part of that. If you don't have a trend, you aren't going to make it popular in the same sense.

ZapperZ

But see, communicating to the public requires a completely different track than the communication that are done in science. So simply saying that scientists needs to communicate to the public just won't cut it.

Scientists communicate with each other via facts. These are BORING. I've attended some of the most boring seminars given by some of the most prominent physicists. An insomniac would be cured in one of these seminars. Yet, people clamor to be in the audience, not due to how it was delivered, but WHAT was delivered.

This isn't true with the public. Pat Dahmer of DOE once said that to communicate to the politicians in Capitol Hill, she has to be "perky, shallow, and superficial", because she can't simply give them facts, they won't understand and won't be interested! And that is how one has to communicate with the public, via presenting a lot of bells and whistles, something that scientists, by nature, are not concerned with in their profession! This is also why the pseudosciences and other snake-oil venders are quite successful - they are good at distracting the public from the validity of their claim, and dress up their wares with catchy and attractive messages. Scientists, on the other hand, think that the facts alone should be sufficient.

Zz.

Ryan_m_b

I think you're confusing ignorance with arrogance or willful ignorance. This is an important distinction; if someone doesn't know what they don't know or knows what they don't know and acknowledges it then they aren't idiots nor should they be treated with contempt. They should be offered the chance to learn and at the same time we should be looking at why they are in this situation and if it is indicitive of something that needs to be changed in society.

However if someone refuses to learn a subject after their ignorance has been pointed out but strongly opines on it still then we have a problem.

I realise this is a bit convoluted so here's some examples;

1) Someone doesn't know what they don't know: Alice didn't realise that evolutionary biology was a field of science

2) Someone knows what they don't know: Alice had heard of evolutionary biology as a science but didn't know anything about it

3) Willful ignorance: Alice had heard of evolutionary biology as a science and didn't know anything about it but she still believed it was wrong

Point 1 and 2 are largely neutral in that it doesn't necessarily say anything negative about the person but potentially outlines a problem in their education. Point 3 highlights a situation where Alice's behaviour could be said to be negative (AKA idiotic) because whilst she is aware of her ignorance she still insists she is correct. Unfortunately people often lump people with 1 and 2 in with those that are 3 which isn't fair IMO and is quite discouraging.

Ryan_m_b

Absolutely agree with this and everything else you have said. The scientific community needs to concern itself with adopting and developing better ways of communicating science to the public. IMO public communication should be a module or two (or three...) in every science course because it is that vital. Increasingly so in this day and age.

In combination the public should be taught science from a young age in a fundamentally better way. Rather than learning facts they should learn what science is and what makes it different.

ZapperZ

Unfortunately, using the same tactics of communication that have been done by others is a double-edged sword. Communicating to the public that will capture their imagination and interest requires that one be "out there", and often has to make outlandish claims.

Just look at the recent examples where something out of physics captured the public imagination and interest - LHC causing blackholes, and neutrinos moving faster than c. Both of these do not occur, but the possibility that they could is what caught the public's (and the media's) interest, NOT the physics. So you end up with some outlandish claims and reports, not on what happened, but on speculation on what might or could happen. In other word, one makes up some news on all the possibilities if such-and-such is true.

I don't think a lot of scientists can stomach such a thing. I certainly can't. We risk looking wishy-washy and uncertain, just like the diet industry. We can certainly try to explain things in simple terms, but not any simpler, as Einstein would insist. At the end of the day, it has to be a 2-way street where both scientists and the general public has to meet half-way. We can try to explain things in simpler and more interesting fashion, but the public must also make an effort to learn, at least basic concepts, to be able to comprehend what they are being presented. Learning takes effort, and there's simply no way around that.

Zz.

NewtonianAlch

What is often nicely laid out in theory isn't always the case in practice. Clearly, there's not going to be or much point in a massive re-education program for adults. Especially not in this kind of economic scenario we're going through at present. So whilst I completely agree with what you've said here, it is after all just wishful thinking, or to put it better, it's what one could or would do in a perfect world.

Quite often, the world is unfair and in practice this is the case nearly all of the time. When I say that I refer to another example where ignorance is not an excuse, and that's with the law. I don't recall ever having to sit through legal lessons or being quizzed on what's right or wrong in society, these things are learnt through experience, observation and basic reasoning skills which are no different to the sciences and what's around them. You may live in a country where there are no speeding rules, and you come and do it another country, it's going to be awfully hard to convince the judge that driving obnoxiously and dangerously was not self-evident or you weren't educated enough to reason out the obvious consequences.

So I don't think anyone can play this "I don't know and I never learnt it card" - as an example, that an electronic device is made through the application of maths and science is not something that has to be taught. No more than you need to be taught that you get your prescribed medication by a qualified doctor and not the receptionist at the local mall. They are learnt through observation from your parents, the news, your friends, just living life, whatever the case may be.

Edit: Although I do admit and concede no one should be treated with contempt, that for the most part was a rant and a spur of the moment thing. Anyhow, I didn't blast them or round-house kick anyone, hopefully people should realise here that part was a bit of a joke.

AnTiFreeze3

Having science enthusiasts with winning personalities helps. People will be more likely to learn about and better understand science if they are interested in it.

In regards to whether or not scientists, or at least the scientifically literate, have a right to get upset about ignorance of science, I personally believe they do, due to the unquestionable importance of science and technology in the advancements of our knowledge and societal progress.

By the way, ZapperZ, have you ever forgotten to include your Zz at the end of a post? One would assume that, in over 20,000 posts, the thought would have slipped your mind at least once.

nitsuj

That's well said Jimmy.

And I too think this is the reason for "lack of interest" in the sciences.

What does it actually (physically) matter if you know something...all one needs to know is "how to".

How to use the phone, determine the season or drink some water ect.

That being said, I love knowing more...I find it satisfying.

BobG

I find it ironic that no one has yet linked to a scientific paper that answers your question.

At least part of the problem might be British science journalism.

Exhibit #1: The secret of making a scary movie has been calculated by university experts. (BBC article). The first problem I have with this formula is that "how true the movie is" is added to "how much fantasy the movie is" and then the two are averaged. Is this somehow related to conserveration of energy, except in the film domain? And if so, wouldn't averaging the two wind up being a constant?

The second problem I have is that the "university experts" consist of Anna Sigler, a recent graduate of King's College London, watching 10 horror movies while consuming a frightening amount of vodka. The result is a formula that is nearly as meaningful as the NFL's passer rating. If the formula ranks your favorites in the proper order, it must be scientifically sound, right?

As an aside, the designer of the NFL passer rating was almost certainly of British descent. At least as certain as Elizabeth Warren being of Native American descent. (You would think someone would just look in her family Bible since no one would lie about their geneology in a family Bible - which is why there are so few Muslims of Native American descent. And how is it that a person is Hispanic if one of their ancestors spoke Spanish without the aid of Spanish lessons unless they spoke Spanish because they ran a Chinese restaraunt in Madrid, in which case they're Asian? Given how muddled the picture is for ethnic groups/religious groups/language groups, I'm absolutely certain the person that designed the NFL passer rating was British because you claim a person belongs to a certain nationality, religion, ethnic group, language group and be absolutely assured there's some way to justify putting them in that group.)

Exhibit #2: Murphy at the Bat, New Yorker, 20 Oct 2004.
Many baseball fans will realize that this scientific study was dramatically and irrefutably refuted within a mere week of this article being published as the Red Sox became the only team in major league history to come back from a 3-0 deficit to win a 7 game series!

Why is British science journalism so bad? Finally, scientific proof of how bad it is and why it's so bad.

They should learn a few things from American reporters that have a fail safe method of determining whether the person they're interviewing always tells the truth, always lies, or sometimes lies and sometimes tells the truth. They simply ask the person they're interviewing, "If I ask the expert in front of door A whether the expert in front of door B will claim you're lying when you claimed the expert in front of door A never tells the truth, how will he answer?" If he really has a scientific mind, he'll be able to answer that question truthfully (but might not if he's a liar with scientific mind), while a person with an unscientific mind that always lies won't be able to figure out what answer would be a lie, while a person with an unscientific mind that always tells the truth won't be able to figure out what answer would be the truth.

TheStatutoryApe

I am well aware that I was using anecdotal evidence and it may not pan out cross region and cross culture and may even be flat out wrong. But... I don't see this trend other people apparently have observed that some significant portion of the population allegedly doesn't care about, or have any interest in, science. I am quite certain that you likely never had any intention of practicing your martial arts on some poor ignorant female but it strikes me as a very common attitude among more intelligent people to look down on, and speak disdainfully of, the ignorant. And it seems rather counter productive if the typical possessor of knowledge is disdainful of the typical person who lacks said knowledge. Unless of course you actually like to look down on people and consider yourself superior, which is rather probable in many cases I would guess.

I am pointing out what appears to be a very likely phenomenon to me. That "intelligent people" tend to look down on "unintelligent people" and this causes enmity between both sides regardless of anyones particular intent to be hostile towards the other. We wind up with a portion of society that distrusts the other because they perceive them as arrogant jerks and another that distrust the former because they seem willfully stupid and illogically hostile. You don't get progress with that sort of situation. You don't have to hold anyone's hand but if you don't like ignorant people being ignorant simply not liking them, and fantasizing about doing violence upon them, is not likely to fix anything and possibly only makes it worse.

Kholdstare

I think it is difficult for general public to think like a scientist. Because scientific process takes too much effort in thinking process, careful analysis, availability of resource and data etc. to fit in the daily schedule of a person of other profession.

And even if they do have time to think scientifically, that mental task is not always as much entertaining as having other thoughts. I agree scientific thinking can also produce wonderful and entertaining thoughts. But to get same amount of entertainment from science one has to do a lot more mental task than regular entertainment.

Its even very difficult without other person/group's supports, mathematical training and library.

I think the prevailing human nature is basically to be happy and lazy. They would be happy to have a correct but "superficial explanation" of natural events without imparting too much energy to go into deeper understanding. Those light explanations will also entertain them as they would get a feeling of being wise and make them happy.

But they are also too lazy to take the trouble of digging up deeper truth. Hence there will be effort to translate complicated scientific phenomena in simple and small number of explanations. This is an impossibility and cannot be done without sacrificing the correctness of the subject. This is where communication between scientists and public fails.

Most pseudosciences are not generated with an intention to mislead general public. Its the product of trying to do the impossible.

I agree with zz than when communicating science with general public it have to be cheesy and entertaining. You cant blame them for not showing effort because its their nature. And I think it'll always be that way.

Ryan_m_b

Let's not bicker people, this is a serious subject that needs careful consideration and discussion.

chiro

The responses in this thread have been really good IMO.

As an exercise to see what people are used and what they have come to expect in terms of delivery, content and otherwise, sit down and watch a little bit of the news on the TV or some kind of informative thing like a current affairs program. I personally hate watching them, but realize that a lot of people have this kind of expectation when they want information that is more 'serious' than say the comedy shows or CSI (and whatever else they show nowadays).

If you couple with that with the endless supplies of movies, video games, and constant exposure to things that have highly levels of exaggeration, fantasy, and other kinds of blatant distortions or departures from reality, then what you end up getting is a really impatient audience who ends up getting bored when they hear something a lot more factual, closer to the truth, and un-edited.

Think about all the sci-fi movies, TV-shows, video games, and any other content that is digested very frequently: the back to the futures, stargate, star trek, and so on and then consider how many people actually know even a little bit of real science like Newtons Laws and then think about how many people actually understand how anything really works like a mobile phone or a broadband telecommunications network or a computer.

Unfortunately science, math, and so on is boring because people are so used to having the firecrackers, action movies, video games, and all these other distractions that are not normal which ends up making normal boring and hyper-normal closer to normal.

Ryan_m_b

This thread has been pruned.

Overall I agree with what you're saying. Entertainment containing bad science and entertaining pseudo-science is better to watch than dry science shows but a lot of science shows do include entertainment. Either through engaging presenters (Brian Cox, Attenborough), good camera work (wildlife documentaries) or interesting CGI (journey through the solar system) etc. If anything science media as an independent field needs to develop.

ZapperZ

So, just out of curiosity, how many of you here have been involved in trying to communicate science to the public? Your participation here on PF does not count.

If you have, did you learn anything from your effort? Did you think your efforts were productive? What lessons can you convey to the group here?

If you haven't, why not?

Zz.