- #71
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,404
- 10,722
Agreed. Earlier in the thread others were talking more about the role of schools and I definitely think that science education is lacking, particularly when it comes to teaching how to think instead of just teaching facts. I think science is taught too much like history in too many cases - just as a collection of facts. For that matter, English classes need to ensure there isn't too much of story-telling and ensure they emphasize the critical thinking aspect. That can be tough to do because literature is a mixture of good stories and life lessons, so care needs to be taken to ensure the "lessons" part isn't glossed over. Especially when the story is really long for what is a fairly simple/concise message.Greg Bernhardt said:And teaching critical thinking.
Agreed as well, and this one is tough. I'm not sure if it is human nature or just a current cultural problem, but negativity gets more attention than positivity. It's how the news works, for example. Positive stories are boring and normal, so they don't need to be said. Negatives are abnormal, so we need to be informed about them. There's also (and maybe this is just an American thing), the "rebel" mindset where the lone-wolf who bucks the system is celebrated as a hero. People want to to be that guy. I think that (plus just that people don't like being told they are wrong) makes it easy to get on a bad path and hard to get off.The problem is the public's attraction and digestion of poor or bait click science. One problem is that doubt and skepticism leads in adoption of bad science. Doses of doubt and skepticism is unfortunately uncomfortable for most people so it's easy to satisfy them with bad science instead of continuing to investigate and think critically. One's own pride also inhibits going back on their skepticism to the original conclusion. For example if someone has doubts about gravity, they are attracted by an alternative view that supports their doubt. Even if it's not completely satisfying it's better to digest internally than to go back to mainstream gravity, because they would internally admit defeat and render the skepticism a waste of time. So they dig themselves deeper.
Clickbait science is a tough one for me. Besides being inherently shallow, I don't think it is inherently bad, it's just done poorly. And this is where I put a lot of blame on the media. It's fine to want to tell an interesting story, but journalistic ethics requires that they put an effort into be right, and all too often they skip that part. So the media gives breathless reports about perpetual motion machines and miracle diets and travel to Mars* and never bothers to do the little due diligence that can tell them it's probably a scam or worthless hype. Of course, if they did that, then they'd have to abandon the story, and that means more work finding a new one.
*Not sure if people heard, but Mars One went bankrupt. When the miracle Mars Mission fails, it gets a lot less press than when they announce they are going to go ("and buy our merchandise!").