Is the General Public Misinformed about Science and Engineering?

[OmCheeto]

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.

Yes, but I'm sure if a physicist were standing there, I'd sound like President Clinton. But average people are usually impressed. I had to stop talking science at the bar, as an actual particle physicist has taken up residence. Damn smarty...

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?

In trying to convey a concept, I have to do a stream of consciousness, and not let them interrupt until I'm finished, otherwise--------(see below)--------v

If you haven't, why not?
Zz.

Only with one person. He insists paw-zee-trons are ejected from atoms in solar panels by light beams and that's what makes electricity.

For the most part, I like surrounding myself with people smarter than myself. I feel this is the primary reason I'm here at PF. Some people are the opposite. They like having all the answers.

Not sure why, but some people seem to have taken the following way too literally:

All I really need to know I learned in kindergarten​

 

[Evo]

I don't think that most of the public is stupid, it's just ignorance and not caring. For example, the majority of Americans don't believe in evolution. It's not because they were presented with facts that made them think that evolution is not true; it's because someone told them, and they didn't care to even find out what evolution is before dismissing it. Most people simply don't care.

I think you hit the nail on the head. Most people are not even able to think for themselves, they are told what to believe from birth, and those that can manage to break free from the brainwashing are in the minority.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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.

I have done so in a number of different ways over the years. I think the most successful effort was the development of an interactive device that conveyed basic concepts of energy, power, torque, speed, and energy conservation. This operated in the Museum of Science and Industry for many years. I know that we had at least several million participants [program cycles]... probably more like ten million, but I lost track after that. We also know that it was an effective teaching tool as participants were randomly selected and surveyed as part of the requirement for funding. On a number of occasions I also had direct feedback from children who had participated. In every case, or nearly so, they SWORE quite emphatically they would never waste energy again!

I have also participated in numerous science education efforts directed at children. In every case I found that most kids are receptive and eager to learn. Adults however are another matter. I find that adults who have little exposure to science tend to divide into two groups: On one hand we have folks who are interested in learning but just never pursued scientific subjects. Maybe they were bad at math, got turned off by a bad teacher, or just never had a particular interest. They tend to be receptive to new information. On the other side we have people who don't base their worldview on evidence or logic. They have little or no appreciation for science [or at least the parts they don't like!]. It seems to me that these people see the world the way they want it to be. What's more, I think they need to live this way in order to be happy. I have seen people personally devastated by "the truth". It can be an ugly thing to destroy someone’s belief system no matter how silly it may be. So for many people I think the challenge is more fundamental than simple exposure. It is a matter of psychology and human nature. Some people seem to need to believe whatever it is that makes them happy. And I suspect this is true of everyone to some extent

 

[OmCheeto]

Don't get me wrong! I have a great deal of respect for President Clinton. I just thought it was a funny example of how far off the mark the public understanding of certain aspects of science is. His motivation was admirable, and I respect him for trying to encourage more funding for fundamental research, but his statements betrayed a serious misunderstanding of even basic chemistry. Then again, we are all probably equally misinformed on matters of law! :D

Given that he received his bachelors 44 years ago, and probably had no reasonable cause to study science since then, I'd say he did ok. Even though I completed 8 terms of calculus in university, I've not used it since, and 28 years later, I cannot give you the derivative of x².

Does this make me guilty of having a "serious misunderstanding of mathematics"?

 

[OmCheeto]

I have seen people personally devastated by "the truth". It can be an ugly thing to destroy someone’s belief system no matter how silly it may be.

That was me, the day I found out the truth about rocks and water.

I never really thought about it until that day. I was so sure of myself...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That was me, the day I found out the truth about rocks and water.

I never really thought about it until that day. I was so sure of myself...

I had more profound beliefs in mind. My own sister is a good example, actually. She believes in the claims of John Edwards and the like. She believes dead relatives talk to her in her dreams. She buys into many of the modern spiritual/religious beliefs. And guess what; that makes her happy. She is a wonderful wife and mother who lives a very normal and fulfilling life. But she clearly needs to believe these things. And speaking as someone who has known her since day 1, this is completely consistent with her personality and thinking. It is in her nature.

I love my sister far too much to ever "set her straight".

 

[chiro]

I had more profound beliefs in mind. My own sister is a good example, actually. She believes in the claims of John Edwards and the like. She believes dead relatives talk to her in her dreams. She buys into many of the modern spiritual/religious beliefs. And guess what; that makes her happy. She is a wonderful wife and mother who lives a very normal and fulfilling life. But she clearly needs to believe these things. And speaking as someone who has known her since day 1, this is completely consistent with her personality and thinking. It is in her nature.

I love my sister far too much to ever "set her straight".

The thing is though, no-one can come to assumptions that they 'think' is right based on their own experiences whether in a controlled, formal, highly restrictive setting (like a scientist) or in a completely uncontrolled, messy, informal, non-restrictive setting.

We ultimately have to resort to uncertainty, and this means we have to accept the possibility at least initially that all this stuff can be true.

The thing about proving something is that in order to prove something emphatically, what you usually have to do is to first completely suspend your disbelief that the thing you are trying to disprove is false and then find a contradiction. If the statement is a general one, you only need to find a counter-example. If it's an example, you need to find a general proof.

Now the people have provided one example which means the scientists needs to show a contradiction that shows that it can't happen in any circumstance. Do you realize how ambitious this is given the fact that we barely even know how anything actually functions at a descriptive capacity, let alone works in a deeper contextual capacity?

If you really want to set your sister straight and do it in a rigorous way, the burden is on you to prove in a general way that experiences like the ones she describes can not happen: just like mathematicians do when they prove many things by contradiction.

Are you ready to do that?

 

[Evo]

Now the people have provided one example which means the scientists needs to show a contradiction that shows that it can't happen in any circumstance. Do you realize how ambitious this is given the fact that we barely even know how anything actually functions at a descriptive capacity, let alone works in a deeper contextual capacity?

If you really want to set your sister straight and do it in a rigorous way, the burden is on you to prove in a general way that experiences like the ones she describes can not happen: just like mathematicians do when they prove many things by contradiction.

Are you ready to do that?

Actually, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not the critic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof#Holder_of_the_burden

 

[chiro]

Actually, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not the critic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof#Holder_of_the_burden

So given this quote:

I love my sister far too much to ever "set her straight".

How is this not a claim either explicitly or implicitly?

They are actually both making a claim: it's not only the sister.

 

[micromass]

So given this quote:
How is this not a claim either explicitly or implicitly?

They are actually both making a claim: it's not only the sister.

Forgive my ignorance, but how exactly is that a claim for or against the paranormal??

 

[Evo]

So given this quote:



How is this not a claim either explicitly or implicitly?

They are actually both making a claim: it's not only the sister.

He said

She believes dead relatives talk to her in her dreams

She would have to prove this, it would not be up to him to disprove it.

I undertand your point, but it begins with her claims.

 

[chiro]

Forgive my ignorance, but how exactly is that a claim for or against the paranormal??

If you want to "set someone straight", the implication is that they need "fixing". Her claim boiled down to paranormal behaviour (specifically in relation to the actions of John Edwards) being a real phenomenon.

The implication is that Ivan Seeking wanting to "set her sister straight" is that of "correcting" her beliefs, thus effectively setting out to change her belief of said claim implying that it is in fact wrong.

 

[micromass]

If you want to "set someone straight", the implication is that they need "fixing". Her claim boiled down to paranormal behaviour (specifically in relation to the actions of John Edwards) being a real phenomenon.

The implication is that Ivan Seeking wanting to "set her sister straight" is that of "correcting" her beliefs, thus effectively setting out to change her belief of said claim implying that it is in fact wrong.

Not necessarily. "Setting her straight" could also mean to teach her about arguments for claims and to show that the evidence (that she or other people provide) is not sufficient.

One can NEVER prove that ghost don't exist. But we can take a look at the arguments and the evidence and make conclusions about it.

If I say that I'm going to "set someone straight" about beliefs, that doesn't mean I'm going to prove that it's false, but it means I'm going to debunk the evidence that people have for it.

 

[chiro]

He said She would have to prove this, it would not be up to him to disprove it.

I undertand your point, but it begins with her claims.

It is up to both if both want to prove it. If someone makes a claim but doesn't want to prove it, then at a minimum they have to accept that it is potentially wrong. If someone states it as a fact where there is no potential instance that it is ever wrong, then they would have to prove it.

If both people think that there is no potential falsification in their claim, they both have to prove it.

I don't know if Ivan's sister or even Ivan have the stance that there is no potential for any kind of falsification for their claims (remember potential falsity refers to any instance of it being wrong: not necessarily disproving something entirely. Having zero potential falsification corresponds to an absolute truth).

If they both do, they both need to show proof. If one does and the other accepts the possibility that they might be wrong in one way or another (potential falsification), the first must prove. If both admit the potential for falsification, then both just get on with their lives.

 

[micromass]

It is up to both if both want to prove it. If someone makes a claim but doesn't want to prove it, then at a minimum they have to accept that it is potentially wrong. If someone states it as a fact where there is no potential instance that it is ever wrong, then they would have to prove it.

If both people think that there is no potential falsification in their claim, they both have to prove it.

I don't know if Ivan's sister or even Ivan have the stance that there is no potential for any kind of falsification for their claims (remember potential falsity refers to any instance of it being wrong: not necessarily disproving something entirely. Having zero potential falsification corresponds to an absolute truth).

If they both do, they both need to show proof. If one does and the other accepts the possibility that they might be wrong in one way or another (potential falsification), the first must prove. If both admit the potential for falsification, then both just get on with their lives.

That's not how it works. It is for people making the existence claim to prove it. We should not (and cannot) disprove an existence claim.

It's the same thing in a court of law. The defendant should not prove that he is not guilty. It is the other site who should prove that he IS guilty. And it is up to the defendant to debunk the evidence a charge.

 

[Evo]

It is up to both if both want to prove it.

No. Please read the link I provided.

Holder of the burden

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof#Holder_of_the_burden

 

[chiro]

Not necessarily. "Setting her straight" could also mean to teach her about arguments for claims and to show that the evidence (that she or other people provide) is not sufficient.

One can NEVER prove that ghost don't exist. But we can take a look at the arguments and the evidence and make conclusions about it.

If I say that I'm going to "set someone straight" about beliefs, that doesn't mean I'm going to prove that it's false, but it means I'm going to debunk the evidence that people have for it.

I see what you are saying, but ultimately people in the end engage in this process to move towards proving their own point.

I mean you can say "debunk" the evidence, but all you are doing is trying to re-inforce your own perspective over someone elses. It is always the initial intention of a debunker or challenger to do that.

The other thing though is that a lot of people do not admit that their conclusions are under uncertainty and this is such a critical thing.

When people think they 'debunk' something, they think that their arguments are conclusive. This means that the implication is that the debunker not only has all the information about the argument specifically, but all the information about everything complementary to that of the context of the argument.

To put it simply, the arguments that are presented to 'debunk' are always going to be in a very fixed context that miss a tonne of things. One reason for this is that in order to analyze anything effectively, we have to simplify and constrain things and I understand that.

The problem is that people forget they are even doing this and then assume that they didn't do this: they think they covered all bases when they made the argument and the so called 'debunking', when they didn't do that at all.

Again, the point I am making is that when people set someone straight, they have the explicit intent of trying to change someones perspective to their own and this predisposition ends up having the characteristics mentioned above.

 

[Evo]

I see what you are saying, but ultimately people in the end engage in this process to move towards proving their own point.

I mean you can say "debunk" the evidence, but all you are doing is trying to re-inforce your own perspective over someone elses. It is always the initial intention of a debunker or challenger to do that.

The other thing though is that a lot of people do not admit that their conclusions are under uncertainty and this is such a critical thing.

When people think they 'debunk' something, they think that their arguments are conclusive. This means that the implication is that the debunker not only has all the information about the argument specifically, but all the information about everything complementary to that of the context of the argument.

To put it simply, the arguments that are presented to 'debunk' are always going to be in a very fixed context that miss a tonne of things. One reason for this is that in order to analyze anything effectively, we have to simplify and constrain things and I understand that.

The problem is that people forget they are even doing this and then assume that they didn't do this: they think they covered all bases when they made the argument and the so called 'debunking', when they didn't do that at all.

Again, the point I am making is that when people set someone straight, they have the explicit intent of trying to change someones perspective to their own and this predisposition ends up having the characteristics mentioned above.

You probably missed this, so i'll repeat it.

It is up to both if both want to prove it.

No. Please read the link I provided.

Holder of the burden

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof#Holder_of_the_burden

 

[dipole]

Yes, but I'm sure if a physicist were standing there, I'd sound like President Clinton. But average people are usually impressed. I had to stop talking science at the bar, as an actual particle physicist has taken up residence. Damn smarty...

In trying to convey a concept, I have to do a stream of consciousness, and not let them interrupt until I'm finished, otherwise--------(see below)--------v

Only with one person. He insists paw-zee-trons are ejected from atoms in solar panels by light beams and that's what makes electricity.

For the most part, I like surrounding myself with people smarter than myself. I feel this is the primary reason I'm here at PF. Some people are the opposite. They like having all the answers.

Not sure why, but some people seem to have taken the following way too literally:

Whoa, what bar do you go to where people talk about science?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Our baristas, yoga teachers, and drywall hangers are taxpaying, voting citizens. As a collective, they have real power, and ultimately if we do not make a concerted effort to inform the public, we will be left with a bunch of scientists with their hats in their hands begging for money from people who have no idea why it is important to fund the endeavor.

The authentic physicists here can confirm or deny this but my understanding is that most research funding comes from the government and big industry. I don't think voters are involved in deciding what gets funded.

 

[OmCheeto]

I had more profound beliefs in mind. My own sister is a good example, actually. She believes in the claims of John Edwards and the like. She believes dead relatives talk to her in her dreams. She buys into many of the modern spiritual/religious beliefs. And guess what; that makes her happy. She is a wonderful wife and mother who lives a very normal and fulfilling life. But she clearly needs to believe these things. And speaking as someone who has known her since day 1, this is completely consistent with her personality and thinking. It is in her nature.

I love my sister far too much to ever "set her straight".

I come from a large family: 4 brothers and 2 sisters. We run the gamut from evangelical christian to evangelical atheist, and everything in between. So far, I've noticed no difference in their interest in science. My mother claimed to talk to angels, yet there were at least 4 encyclopedias in our house when I was growing up. I think she bought them a volume at a time at the grocery store. (We were dirt poor, and I had to resort to dismantling our B&W TV when I was 10 to get her to buy a color set. It worked!)

One anecdote though that I should point out, is that people can be way smarter than you think. Part of the clan went to Mexico a few years back, and no one knew how to convert from Celsius to Fahrenheit to cook some lasagna in the oven. Being the brilliant scientist that I am, I decided to work out the point slope intercept, knowing the boiling and freezing points of water in both scales. Working through the problem on paper, I noticed that my sister was doing the same thing, as she knew the scales from her porch thermometer. So I stopped and watched her solve the problem. She'd never struck me as being a mathematical type person, but she figured it out.

She also posts scientific discoveries on my facebook page, that she thinks might interest me. She actually beat PF one day. I was impressed.

 

[chiro]

You probably missed this, so i'll repeat it.

No. Please read the link I provided.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof#Holder_of_the_burden

But you are assuming a debate: comments can be made without the implication of something being a debate. A debate will be a causal effect of some discussion involving ideas being communicated, but it doesn't actually become a debate until people decide that they need to change others beliefs or convince some audience greater than themselves of some particular conclusion.

Not everything is a debate. Many people say things to other people and not everyone has the need or desire to challenge what they say and thus create a scenario for debate and this is a critical thing that needs to be understood.

Scientists are a different bunch because it is their livelihood and nature to find a measure of certainty and engage in debate when there are conflicts between their own views and another.

With your example of the court, again two parties can do things but things don't always end up in court. However if one party wishes to take it to court, then things change.

Think of examples of owing money especially between friends. In some situations it becomes a problem that goes to court or some kind of arbitrater and then the defendant has the right to be innocent until proven guilty. But the matter doesn't have to go to court and if it doesn't then the context is completely different.

Realize that not everyone is out to prove everything all the time and be 'right' all the time.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Whoa, what bar do you go to where people talk about science?

You can find people to discuss science with at just about any coffee shop. If nothing else, there are science students taking advantage of the free Wi-Fi. I met a working aerospace engineer a couple months back. Met a neurologist once. Tons of science students.

 

[Evo]

But you are assuming a debate:

No, I am taking it to not be a debate. His sister has stated a belief and he's not going to try to debate it. And that is correct on his part.

 

[OmCheeto]

hmmm...

Clinton looks like he might make a good member of PF.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=p2dT7xVS6-s#t=3260s

Its nice to see an old lawyer who can keep up with science.

"In another galaxy, in the milky way.."

almost...

hmmm... might be the "poly-sci" part of his brain that automatically inserts too many words to describe something.

 

[ZapperZ]

Humm... I think only two members who participated in this thread answered my question on how many here have made an effort to communicate science to the public beyond participation on PF.

Are we all talk but effort?

Zz.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

I'm in high school, and am in the science club at our school. I'm sure there would be something that I could try to do, but I'm not entirely sure where to start.

So as of now, I'm all talk no effort.

 

[KiwiKid]

Are we all talk but effort?

I don't know if you would consider this a serious effort, considering that I've barely started college and only did a few things in high school, but I tried a few times to give some sort of presentation about the scientific method to first- and second-years in high school (I was a fifth year at the time - I'm not sure what you'd call that in the USA). I *think* most were pretty interested and I *think* I was able to explain it all quite well, but of course it would be a rather hard for me to judge my own performance.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

I don't know if you would consider this a serious effort, considering that I've barely started college and only did a few things in high school, but I tried a few times to give some sort of presentation about the scientific method to first- and second-years in high school (I was a fifth year at the time - I'm not sure what you'd call that in the USA). I *think* most were pretty interested and I *think* I was able to explain it all quite well, but of course it would be a rather hard for me to judge my own performance.

If 5th year is the last year of secondary school in the UK, then that would be equivalent to a Senior in high school in America.

For future reference, in the U.S, we go through four years of high school. First year is Freshman, second year is Sophomore, third year is Junior, and fourth year is Senior.

Anyways, I'm sure that was helpful. Usually when giving speeches, if people look like they're paying attention, they are. Whenever I present something, I can't stand to go up there and not know the material, so I go hardcore with it and know the subject as well as I possibly can. This results in me being more confident with my presentations, and I've invariably gotten both excellent grades from my teachers, and excellent responses from my classmates.

What I'm getting at is, when I knew the material and seemed interested in what I was presenting, people looked like they were paying attention. When, say, I was giving a presentation in a kind of blow-off elective class that held no interest to me whatsoever, my presentations suffered, and I was able to see that in the way my classmates responded.

 

[dipole]

Humm... I think only two members who participated in this thread answered my question on how many here have made an effort to communicate science to the public beyond participation on PF.

Are we all talk but effort?

Zz.

I'm not really involved in the thread but I can answer your question.

I help run public observing at the Observatory on campus on weekends. I run the telescope and show people things in the sky they never new existed, explain basic astrophysics and stellar evolution and various cosmic processes, and also a bit of the history of astronomy, and wherever I can work it in physics.