Is the General Public Misinformed about Science and Engineering?

[NewtonianAlch]

Ryan, that was a really good post. I think a lot more could be said, but you've hit the nail on the head and got the key points that is of concern without making it tl;dr

Although I find myself asking, why is it that in the midst of this there will still be plenty of people who sat through those same boring classes that others forgot after a week, but remembered key points and found it interesting?

I think the education system can be greatly improved as anything else, but as you've outlined earlier, I think it's more the perception that's been engrained. It would be good to get an idea of how the sciences are taught in India and China as an example, India I would suspect might have a similar system to the UK, or at least derived from it.

Scientific method or not, I think as Collin earlier mentioned, some people just don't think. It is worrying that someone could honestly claim to love his iProduct and then publicly question the importance of maths. Sadly, something's cannot be taught, common sense and basic reasoning is garnered how? I don't know.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

There was a farmer who knew the length and breadth of his farm. He bought just enough seed to cover the ground and when he planted it, it just covered with no excess. Based on this, he told his friend from the city that the Earth was flat. His friend shook his head and rolled his eyes. "No", he said, "the Earth is round." "How do you know that?" asked the farmer. "I read it in a book." was the reply.

 

[KiwiKid]

3) Teaching of Science.[/color] [...]

Two years before I finished high school, they created an 'Algemene Natuurwetenschappen' (General Natural Sciences - something like that) course, which was *mandatory* for everyone at the highest level (VWO). The course looked promising to me: it was about such things as about how people found out that the Earth wasn't the center of the solar system, the scientific method, DNA and all the ethical stuff of genetics, some history of science, etc.

Unfortunately, it flopped. I think the reason for this is that every teacher taught it as if it was just a combination of your average physics-chemistry-biology courses. Thus, everyone who'd chosen such courses already found themselves wondering why they'd have to learn more of what they already knew, and those who *didn't* choose similar courses complained that they had to learn stuff they didn't care about and weren't going to use later. No teacher felt the need to correct these misconceptions.

So, yeah... Things can be done much better.

 

[btbam91]

I took a gender studies course as a general education requirement and all I heard for an entire semester was how fake science was. Shaking my damn head...

 

[R.P.F.]

I thought of roundhouse kicking her in the face, but then realized I'd be helping lawyers make more money than they already deserve.

lolololol.
But seriously, I study math yet I can hardly define what math is.

 

[cobalt124]

3) Teaching of Science.[/color]...no one is taught science in school. From a young age science classes in school are filled with endless facts, many of which are dry and boring to the majority of people (including future scientists). It is extremely rare to find someone who has had a lesson on the scientific method itself outside of university (or increasingly these days 6th form in the UK). Consequently for the majority of people all they know of science is that when they were in school they regularly sat through mostly boring lessons where facts were presented to them. I can't think of a single experiment that I ever did at school before 6th form...

This really depresses me. I've mentioned this in a previous thread. In the early 80's I took "O" level Physics and Chemistry. Every week for two years in both subjects we had experimental demonstations from teachers and we did our own experiments in groups and wrote up our method, results and conclusions afterwards. In Physics I did at least two projects that I remember, one on noise pollution and one one carbon dating. I went away, researched it myself, wrote it up, and gave an assessment of the subject. It seems children today are being let down in this respect.

 

[dlgoff]

The unfortunate answer is that they don't think about it.

Do you think they wonder how a frying pan is made? Or the flooring they walk on? Or the bed they sleep in?

No.

I think I've just found my new signature. Seriously.

 

[Evo]

I think I've just found my new signature. Seriously.

Lol.

 

[EulersFormula]

Although I'm in engineering, I have to say that I'm ignorant about a lot of things as well, even within science. I know nothing about biology and I'm fairly ignorant on world history, literature, religion, and other subjects relating to the social sciences. Most careers, just like science and engineering, take years of skill and hard work.

 

[pinkfishegg]

I find a lot of people in the United States think they're not smart enough for science. I'm going into my 3rd year of undergraduate physics and when I tell people around me I'm a physics major they treat me like I'm a genius. I usually tell them something like " Well I wasn't great at math in high school, and it takes me a lot of time and effort to do physics. I do it because I find it fascinating, not because it's easy and I want to make a lot of money. If you put a lot of time and love and energy into science, I think you could get it too."

People never really believe me though, and just reply that they're not really math or science people. Does anyone else get this response? I feel that high schools segregate people into scientists and non-scientists way too early and the only people who really get ahead (with honors sciences classes and so on) are the people whose parents tell them to become doctors and engineers. I know this is a generalization but I wish science was encouraged more as something more people can do. I think a lot of people see it as something smart people do when they want to make a lot of money.

 

[Evo]

I think a lot of people see it as something smart people do when they want to make a lot of money.

Unfortunately, people that go into the sciences are, for the most part, terribly underpaid. Scientists do it for the love of science, not to make money.

 

[lisab]

I find a lot of people in the United States think they're not smart enough for science. I'm going into my 3rd year of undergraduate physics and when I tell people around me I'm a physics major they treat me like I'm a genius. I usually tell them something like " Well I wasn't great at math in high school, and it takes me a lot of time and effort to do physics. I do it because I find it fascinating, not because it's easy and I want to make a lot of money. If you put a lot of time and love and energy into science, I think you could get it too."

People never really believe me though, and just reply that they're not really math or science people. Does anyone else get this response? I feel that high schools segregate people into scientists and non-scientists way too early and the only people who really get ahead (with honors sciences classes and so on) are the people whose parents tell them to become doctors and engineers. I know this is a generalization but I wish science was encouraged more as something more people can do. I think a lot of people see it as something smart people do when they want to make a lot of money.

Oh sure, I get that kind of response very often. I hesitate to even tell people anymore that I majored in physics, it just stops any conversation...sigh. Probably doesn't help that I'm female, too.

Yeah our high school system...what a disaster. In places it's excellent (check out what Chi Meson does with his students!). In other places it's hopeless .

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

In my school of nearly 1100 people, an astounding 10 people took AP Physics this last year.

Ten. Out of over 1000.

 

[Borg]

Oh sure, I get that kind of response very often. I hesitate to even tell people anymore that I majored in physics, it just stops any conversation...sigh.

But, it's so much fun to watch the reaction when someone is spewing ridiculous statements about science.

 

[GregJ]

Reading through this whole thread just makes me think of a movie I saw, called Idiocracy.

But yeah, I nearly always get the "oooo... gosh!" when I say that I am studying physics, and I never know how to reply to that :shy:

 

[CDTOE]

Lately, I've been thinking that the increasing control/contribution of big corporations over education has contributed to the decline of public knowledge and interest in science. In my area, major corporations are mostly in oil/chemical/iron business, and they're considered to be the top corporations in terms of salary, health insurance and job security. Most electrical engineering students in the university that I study in, even the hard-working individuals, are eagerly looking to the moment they graduate with a BS degree, so they can get a fancy job in one of those oil corporations where most of them don't even do a real electrical engineering work.

The attitude of those students is apparent. They study to get a job and would rather not to expand their knowledge outside what they've been taught in class. Actually, they would be happy to have a teacher that removes some subjects of a given course so that they can prepare less for exams and to get to their most ambitious goal, A+. There are exceptions, but very, very few and I hope to be one of them.

 

[BobG]

People never really believe me though, and just reply that they're not really math or science people. Does anyone else get this response?

Once, at a party, from a proctologist. And then he started telling me about his job and I got bored and left.

 

[Danger]

On my graduation day from locksmithing school, the teacher told us that we were now about to start learning. Boy, was he right! I suspect that the same might be said about any technological field including the experimental side of more advanced subjects like physics. The best teachers teach you how to learn.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I thought of roundhouse kicking her in the face, but then realized I'd be helping lawyers make more money than they already deserve.

Perhaps some people don't ask questions and so don't learn because they don't want to get round house kicked in the face?

Seriously... I've met very few people who do not think that science and technology are interesting and things that they would like to learn about. I have, however, met several people who are knowledgeable who seem to take delight in treating people less knowledgeable than them like half-wits. And I can't say I have ever met anyone who responds well to being treated like a numbskull. Sadly all of my science teachers in high school looked down on, and talked down to, any student who didn't come prepackaged with a will and desire to learn about science. And those that did, but did not do so well in class, typically got more of the stick than the carrot as well.

Basically my point is: What do you expect from people that you talk about like they're a waste of space?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Basically my point is: What do you expect from people that you talk about like they're a waste of space?

Totally agreed and I think this applies to all fields. We should all learn/be taught the basics of as many fields as possible because they are important to how we function as a society, so even if someone doesn't find the scientific method interesting it would be beneficial for them to know what it is. Too often though people confuse understanding the fundamentals to learning the entire field, generally the field being whatever the speaker is in.

I find this most common with IT types, they seem to forget that most people don't want to know the intracasies of their computer any more than they do their rail network. They just want it to work and to be easy and fun to use. This is why Apple did so well with the iphone and ipad IMO, they realized that people just want an easy and artsy interface to a tool that to them doesn't need to be more than a black box.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

You remind me of "The IT Crowd". Its the way scientists and experts are generally perceived (over here any way); that they are arrogant, bitter that more people don't recognize their genius, and generally unable to communicate with "normal" people.

I get the impression that pseudo science and pop science are so popular because of the attempt to give "common sense" explanations that anyone can "understand". I'm sure it's rather appealing to believe that this great mystery of science coveted by "smart people" can be so easily accessible. The snake oil salesman is ever willing to smile and treat his customers with "respect".

I was rather happy to hear that Seth MacFarlane is rebooting Cosmos with Neil deGrasse Tyson (mentioned earlier). Maybe we'll have decent science on TV again.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

You remind me of "The IT Crowd". Its the way scientists and experts are generally perceived (over here any way); that they are arrogant, bitter that more people don't recognize their genius, and generally unable to communicate with "normal" people.

I get the impression that pseudo science and pop science are so popular because of the attempt to give "common sense" explanations that anyone can "understand". I'm sure it's rather appealing to believe that this great mystery of science coveted by "smart people" can be so easily accessible. The snake oil salesman is ever willing to smile and treat his customers with "respect".

I was rather happy to hear that Seth MacFarlane is rebooting Cosmos with Neil deGrasse Tyson (mentioned earlier). Maybe we'll have decent science on TV again.

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

 

[NewtonianAlch]

Perhaps some people don't ask questions and so don't learn because they don't want to get round house kicked in the face?

Seriously... I've met very few people who do not think that science and technology are interesting and things that they would like to learn about. I have, however, met several people who are knowledgeable who seem to take delight in treating people less knowledgeable than them like half-wits. And I can't say I have ever met anyone who responds well to being treated like a numbskull. Sadly all of my science teachers in high school looked down on, and talked down to, any student who didn't come prepackaged with a will and desire to learn about science. And those that did, but did not do so well in class, typically got more of the stick than the carrot as well.

Basically my point is: What do you expect from people that you talk about like they're a waste of space?

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]

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

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

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

1) Someone doesn't know what they don't know: Alice didn't realize 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]

But see, communicating to the public requires a completely different track than the communication that are done in science.

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]

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.

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 black holes, 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]

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

1) Someone doesn't know what they don't know: Alice didn't realize 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.

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 learned 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 learned 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 learned 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 realize 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.