Why the gulf between lay people and physicists?

[MattRob]

OH ... what optimism! 90+ of the human race would give you an utterly blank stare if confronted with such a statement. A HUGE number of them are concerned about where there next meal is coming from. Such a concept would be ludicrous for them.

Heh, of course they would. But that's kind of my point. It's just the differences in-between people. Some people are curious, some people will work hard and form teams and accomplish amazing things, like slipping the surely bonds of Earth and landing on the moon.

Others are content to just watch TV all day, or find out how to scam someone out of a few bucks. It's sad that so many people lack a grander vision, but it's simply the human condition. Too many people just don't feel inspired to accomplish anything grand.

When people are inspired, slums and a starving populace can become a modern, industrial giant in just a few years. It's tragic that the strongest example I know of is also a nation that was inspired in a very aggressive direction. I suppose if I studied human civilizations more I'd have better examples, but I think ultimately it has a lot to do with how much people are inspired to act, how motivated they are, and how well they work together.

I think Zombie Feynman really hit it. How interested, or motivated are people?

I can't tell you how many students I've had in classes I've taught and how many students I knew in my own classes when I was younger who professed a love of science and general interest in physics. They really wanted to know the big pictures of the universe. They were truly interested in how the universe operated. But once they found out that to really dig at those answers for one's self requires thousands of hours of tedious math, careful experimentation or both, many of them left. They weren't THAT interested.

I teach guitar to friends who express an interest, for free and for no other reason than I love to play guitar with people. The more people I know who play means more fun for me. I also have met tons of people who really "wanted" to play. But once they found out just how many hours of practice it required (many of them painful before callouses appear), they weren't THAT interested. [...]

Then when it comes to the plight of impoverished nations (you mentioned "where their next meal is coming from"), I can't help but think other things may be factors as well. Having a brother recently come back from a number of places in Africa and helping teach at schools and do humanitarian aid there, I've been able to learn quite a bit second hand.

Simply put; it's all about that motivation. Of course you want clean medical equipment; but are you going to follow proper procedures, or shortcut things and not bother to follow the instructions out of laziness? When the individuals who compose a society make many small choices like that, that defines whether a society exists using dirty medical equipment with broken glass powder lying around, or whether they soar to the stars and land on the moon.

It's not really a politically correct view, but it's one taken secondhand that makes a lot of sense to me, which is better than any alternative explanations I've seen. After all, what we enjoy of civilization comes from every individual doing their part and doing it well. What happens when every individual cuts corners, though? Bridges collapse, and infrastructure doesn't get built. The millions of small choices individuals make in their daily lives, builds the civilization we live in, and their consequences add up to produce the society we live in. Civilization is a block of material and individuals are the atoms that make it up. Its properties are determined by what each of those individual atoms do.

So I find it ironic that there can exist an attitude of pragmaticism of; "they're too concerned about their next meal to think more grand." If they would think more grand, and do things like follow proper procedures, bother to read the manual, and not show up an hour late, then their society would function much more effectively and their next meal would be easier to come by. I hate to sound somewhat offensive, but you know what, these are real issues and its far more offensive to ignore them because they seem distasteful.

If everyone in a society cares more about their paycheck than doing a good job, and thus shortcut their work; then the services and goods that they spend that paycheck on will be shortcutted by others doing the same thing, and the whole society will suffer.

Long and short of it; people just need to be motivated. When they're motivated, inspired, then they succeed, do good at their job, and society thrives and accomplishes amazing things.

 

[WWGD]

Heh, of course they would. But that's kind of my point. It's just the differences in-between people. Some people are curious, some people will work hard and form teams and accomplish amazing things, like slipping the surely bonds of Earth and landing on the moon.

Others are content to just watch TV all day, or find out how to scam someone out of a few bucks. It's sad that so many people lack a grander vision, but it's simply the human condition. Too many people just don't feel inspired to accomplish anything grand.

When people are inspired, slums and a starving populace can become a modern, industrial giant in just a few years. It's tragic that the strongest example I know of is also a nation that was inspired in a very aggressive direction. I suppose if I studied human civilizations more I'd have better examples, but I think ultimately it has a lot to do with how much people are inspired to act, how motivated they are, and how well they work together.

I think Zombie Feynman really hit it. How interested, or motivated are people?



Then when it comes to the plight of impoverished nations (you mentioned "where their next meal is coming from"), I can't help but think other things may be factors as well. Having a brother recently come back from a number of places in Africa and helping teach at schools and do humanitarian aid there, I've been able to learn quite a bit second hand.

Simply put; it's all about that motivation. Of course you want clean medical equipment; but are you going to follow proper procedures, or shortcut things and not bother to follow the instructions out of laziness? When the individuals who compose a society make many small choices like that, that defines whether a society exists using dirty medical equipment with broken glass powder lying around, or whether they soar to the stars and land on the moon.

It's not really a politically correct view, but it's one taken secondhand that makes a lot of sense to me, which is better than any alternative explanations I've seen. After all, what we enjoy of civilization comes from every individual doing their part and doing it well. What happens when every individual cuts corners, though? Bridges collapse, and infrastructure doesn't get built. The millions of small choices individuals make in their daily lives, builds the civilization we live in, and their consequences add up to produce the society we live in. Civilization is a block of material and individuals are the atoms that make it up. Its properties are determined by what each of those individual atoms do.

So I find it ironic that there can exist an attitude of pragmaticism of; "they're too concerned about their next meal to think more grand." If they would think more grand, and do things like follow proper procedures, bother to read the manual, and not show up an hour late, then their society would function much more effectively and their next meal would be easier to come by. I hate to sound somewhat offensive, but you know what, these are real issues and its far more offensive to ignore them because they seem distasteful.

If everyone in a society cares more about their paycheck than doing a good job, and thus shortcut their work; then the services and goods that they spend that paycheck on will be shortcutted by others doing the same thing, and the whole society will suffer.

Long and short of it; people just need to be motivated. When they're motivated, inspired, then they succeed, do good at their job, and society thrives and accomplishes amazing things.

It is not impossible, but it is hard going constantly against the grain. Try going to one of these places and do what you think should be done yourself.

 

[Rocket50]

I think the simplest reason is that they don't use the math and therefore don't learn it.

 

[gfd43tg]

I disagree. What math does a layman know? Probably most people could solve an algebraic equation like $3x + 4 = 10$, solving for $x$. If you think about it, that is not way beyond what a ''mathematically inclined'' individual would learn. Yeah, there is some gap in knowledge, a few years more of training. I think a person who could claim some math understanding to fit what you are talking about would be to know calculus, linear algebra, and differential equations. But what many laypeople probably know is some rudimentary algebra. And there isn't a whole lot in between the two. Do you want the general public to be familiar with trigonometry? And to what end? That's the main subject of math that comes between algebra and calculus.

 

[MattRob]

It is not impossible, but it is hard going constantly against the grain. Try going to one of these places and do what you think should be done yourself.

Heh, funny thing is, while I my views on why a lot of the world is so far behind are somewhat against the grain, I think the right thing, more or less, is being done to try to develop the world. Education, humanitarian aid, that's all very good. The best thing would be to inspire and motivate people to do well with what they do, to get educated and excited about their career choice and to excel, and to instill good values (a lot of places need more peace. As I've recently seen it written so well; "The thing people have a hard time understanding about freedom of speech is that it includes people who don't agree with you."). That's very much what the ideals of education are, as I understand them. I think a lot of that and humanitarian aid are the best things, and that's typically what people do with fundraisers for the undeveloped world and such.

As for myself, I'm not in much of a position to do that with my life at the moment (especially right now), but It's something I consider.

 

[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.