Why the gulf between lay people and physicists?

[Hatshepsut]

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.

 

[StatGuy2000]

This may be a consequence of the failure of the American educational system, in particular during the elementary school period. I recall that children in elementary schools in Canada and the US don't even learn the multiplication tables until Grade 5 or 6 (at least that's what I remember growing up in Ontario, and also by observing the experiences of my cousins who grew up in Michigan). In many Asian countries including Japan, by contrast, these are expected to be known by Grades 2 and 3, and by Grade 6 children already learn fairly advanced math concepts.

In essence, American schools teach math and science too little during the earlier, formative years and then attempt to cram in advanced concepts in junior high and high school -- in my mind, not a particularly effective way to teach the subjects.

 

[Jozape]

This may be a consequence of the failure of the American educational system, in particular during the elementary school period. I recall that children in elementary schools in Canada and the US don't even learn the multiplication tables until Grade 5 or 6 (at least that's what I remember growing up in Ontario, and also by observing the experiences of my cousins who grew up in Michigan). In many Asian countries including Japan, by contrast, these are expected to be known by Grades 2 and 3, and by Grade 6 children already learn fairly advanced math concepts.

In essence, American schools teach math and science too little during the earlier, formative years and then attempt to cram in advanced concepts in junior high and high school -- in my mind, not a particularly effective way to teach the subjects.

I learned the multiplication table in grade 3 15 years ago. I do not know what they do now, but a quick glance at Khan Academy also shows the multiplication table being taught in grade 3. Khan Academy claims to base their course on a typical US curriculum.

 

[Travis_King]

This may be a consequence of the failure of the American educational system, in particular during the elementary school period. I recall that children in elementary schools in Canada and the US don't even learn the multiplication tables until Grade 5 or 6 (at least that's what I remember growing up in Ontario, and also by observing the experiences of my cousins who grew up in Michigan). In many Asian countries including Japan, by contrast, these are expected to be known by Grades 2 and 3, and by Grade 6 children already learn fairly advanced math concepts.

In essence, American schools teach math and science too little during the earlier, formative years and then attempt to cram in advanced concepts in junior high and high school -- in my mind, not a particularly effective way to teach the subjects.

No, that may be the case in some rare school districts, but for the most part, kids learn multiplication much earlier than grade 5/6. In New Jersey, for example:
http://www.state.nj.us/education/modelcurriculum/math/2.shtml
http://www.state.nj.us/education/modelcurriculum/math/3.shtml

Very similar in many northeastern states, and I'd doubt if it differed that greatly across the US except in certain districts where a special curriculum may be required to ensure the majority of students are not struggling.

The problem with people in general not knowing much physics is that they don't care; they don't work in sciences, don't need to know physics or advanced math in order to carry on with their lives, so if they aren't interested, they don't learn (or remember) it. The average person needs only to know basic math, maybe a little bit of algebra in some cases. They likely need almost no physics. Unless it is an interest of theirs, why should they care to learn/know it?

Of what use is differential equations to a grocery store manager? How much use will Maxwell's equations, or Bernoulli, be to a journalist, a painter, a bus driver?

Most people have a lay understanding of physics because that's all that's required. I understand physics, yet even I don't go through Newtonian equations of motion before I toss a football. Our general understanding and experientially learned approximations are all we need to get by day to day.

Many people don't have the time to study physics and keep their minds sharp on these subjects (this information fades if you don't keep it up), and even if they do, most don't have the inclination. A truck driver probably wants to spend all his time with his wife, maybe his kids, when he's not on the road, rather than reading up on kinematics, which he'll never need to know.

Would it be nice if the average person was more scientifically literate? Yea, of course. But it would also be nice if the average person was more educated in literature, politics, poetry, history, carpentry, psychology, etc. etc.

 

[phinds]

It would also be nice if the 40% to 60% of the people in the US (depending on which poll or study you believe) didn't believe in Aliens, ghosts, angels, and other crap but they DO whether I like it or not (and I do NOT).

 

[Hatshepsut]

I've asked a "dumb question." Oddly, memorizing a times table may be easier for a somewhat older child--an adult could probably do it in a single session. Yet, discourse I see suggests we don't learn to reason with even simple arithmetic.

For instance, in a drag race question I was told that doubling the car's acceleration gets you to the end of the strip in half the time. This doesn't seem right, because doubling the speed gets you there in half the time. With acceleration, the speed changes at some rate, so that doubling the time spent accelerating doubles your speed, and therefore more than doubles your distance. If this is true, then you must more than double your acceleration to cross the strip's fixed distance in half the time.

I realize this argument is sloppy. But it can be made with little mathematics or science, so the layperson should be able to disconfirm the drag race answer with a little thought. Acquisition or inculcation of an attitude hostile to this kind of thinking to be involved. I appreciate all the responses here.

 

[Travis_King]

I've asked a "dumb question." Oddly, memorizing a times table may be easier for a somewhat older child--an adult could probably do it in a single session. Yet, discourse I see suggests we don't learn to reason with even simple arithmetic.

Schools are increasingly veering from the rote memorization path. A lot of schools are incorporating tactile learning with things like base 10 blocks, and word problems and the like.

For instance, in a drag race question I was told that doubling the car's acceleration gets you to the end of the strip in half the time. This doesn't seem right, because doubling the speed gets you there in half the time. With acceleration, the speed changes at some rate, so that doubling the time spent accelerating doubles your speed, and therefore more than doubles your distance. If this is true, then you must more than double your acceleration to cross the strip's fixed distance in half the time.

I think this has more to do with vernacular than physics education. The gas pedal is sometimes called the accelerator, and many people confuse acceleration with velocity.

It is obviously not the case that doubling acceleration will half the time. Basic equations tell us this. Solve for the estimated acceleration of a typical 10 second car assuming it has a zero starting velocity and a constant acceleration through the finish line. At 400 meters (1/4 mile), it will have to accelerate at 8 meters per second squared in order to finish within 10 seconds.

Double the acceleration to 16 m/s^2 and you will not get 5 seconds. You have to quadruple the average acceleration in this example in order to halve the time. With a starting velocity >0, this multiplier changes. Remember, X=Vi*t + 0.5*a*t^2. So, for a given distance, X=400 m, and a desired time (t=5 s), you can easily come up with the required acceleration. Note that because t is a squared term, you can easily see that halving it will require the acceleration to quadruple, all other variables being equal.

Again though, this comes down, I think, to vernacular and a misuse of terminology. Though, I agree, this widespread misuse of terminology is confusing and causes many problems when people start talking about things at a level which they do not fully understand.

I realize this argument is sloppy. But it can be made with little mathematics or science, so the layperson should be able to disconfirm the drag race answer with a little thought. Acquisition or inculcation of an attitude hostile to this kind of thinking to be involved. I appreciate all the responses here.

I imagine if you pointed out the person in question's mistaken use of acceleration, they'd be able to reason that you are correct, and that they in fact meant that you had to double the speed (or quadruple the acceleration, in the case of drag racing).

 

[ZombieFeynman]

Typical citizens could learn much more music than they do without being virtuosos, but they don't. Why is that?
Typical citizens could learn much more baseball than they do without being MLB players, but they don't. Why is that?
Typical citizens could learn much more about art without being professional art historians, but they don't. Why is that?
Typical citizens could learn how to write much better without being Pulitzer Prize winners, but they don't. Why is that?
...

 

[zoobyshoe]

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.

As a layman I can tell you that I actually did learn much more math in school than I can remember now, and that is because if you don't go into some occupation that requires you to maintain and exercise the math you learned, you automatically forget it. You become preoccupied with whatever you actually are doing for a living, and anything you learned that doesn't apply to it atrophies.

 

[Demystifier]

Typical citizens could learn much more music than they do without being virtuosos, but they don't. Why is that?
Typical citizens could learn much more baseball than they do without being MLB players, but they don't. Why is that?
Typical citizens could learn much more about art without being professional art historians, but they don't. Why is that?
Typical citizens could learn how to write much better without being Pulitzer Prize winners, but they don't. Why is that?
...

Great answer! :thumbs:

 

[Rick21383]

Typical citizens could learn much more music than they do without being virtuosos, but they don't. Why is that?
Typical citizens could learn much more baseball than they do without being MLB players, but they don't. Why is that?
Typical citizens could learn much more about art without being professional art historians, but they don't. Why is that?
Typical citizens could learn how to write much better without being Pulitzer Prize winners, but they don't. Why is that?
...

This.

It's a silly and pointless question. OP, I could ask you why you're not very competent in other fields, that aren't physics related.

 

[skeptic2]

My 16 year daughter asks not only about math but also all her subjects, "Why do I have to learn that, I'm never going to use it?" The answer, at least with respect to math, is that it teaches one to think abstractly. And that may be the real problem, not being able to think abstractly. By the way, she's always been on the honor roll.

 

[mal4mac]

My 16 year daughter asks not only about math but also all her subjects, "Why do I have to learn that, I'm never going to use it?"...

How does she know she's never going to use it? If she's all set on pursuing the humanities, the math might not seem useful, but what if she later decides to move into a technical field? (I know some people who have made this transition, and needed to get back up to speed with basic school math!) School is a chance to find out if she has talents in various areas - languages? math? art? music? If she tries her best in all these subjects, she'll know what might be worth attempting later on in life, if she suffers a career setback. For example, if her abilities in drama don't lead to an acting job, she might recall she was really good at learning languages and retrain as a translator.

 

[Choppy]

I don't know. I think it's a valid question to ask - particularly among physicists.

As scientists we have a responsibility to disseminate what we learn to everyone, including the non-physicists - partly because they are the ones who pay for it, partly because they are the ones who benefit from it. Understanding why the average layperson doesn't know more about physics or perhaps even why they don't WANT to know, can help us in soliciting public funds, improve our education system, and ultimately help to create a more scientifically literate populace.

 

[SteamKing]

Anybody can be a layperson just by showing up. To become educated, like a physicist or other professional, requires a large investment of time and foregoing or postponing a lot of the leisure activity which others not only take for granted, but have come to deem as should be bestowed on them by right.

 

[WWGD]

Typical citizens could learn much more music than they do without being virtuosos, but they don't. Why is that?
Typical citizens could learn much more baseball than they do without being MLB players, but they don't. Why is that?
Typical citizens could learn much more about art without being professional art historians, but they don't. Why is that?
Typical citizens could learn how to write much better without being Pulitzer Prize winners, but they don't. Why is that?
...

So, why not try to get a partial answer in one area you're familiar with? It may be too big of a question in general, but why not try to understand a smaller version; a subset in an area one is familiar with?

 

[phinds]

So, why not try to get a partial answer in one area you're familiar with? It may be too big of a question in general, but why not try to understand a smaller version; a subset in an area one is familiar with?

I think you're missing the point. People don't learn what they don't want to / don't need to learn. ZombieFeynman was just pointing out that that applies to ALL areas of interest, to illustrate that it is not limited to STEM areas. In other words, it's not going to be helpful to figure out why people don't learn more about, say, music than they do ... it's just the way people are in all areas.

 

[WWGD]

Well, not to be argumentative, but I think it overall has to see with the perceived "barriers/cost to entry", how difficult it is for one to get started on any given topic, i.e., the perception of how accessible the material is. Then , say, a textbook full of abstract notation may give the impression that the cost of entry is high, meaning one will have to exert a lot of effort, spend a lot of time to gain a foothold. Conversely, a book where the topic seems more accessible will be perceived as having lower cost, lower barriers to entry.
Maybe it is tautological, or completely obvious , but I think the best option is to have clearly-explained material , so that potential readers do not believe they will have to spend half a lifetime just to grasp the basics. Of course, this will help, but is not guaranteed to reach everyone. It is an art that few command, to be able to explain clearly without neither overly-diluting the material nor being overly-technical and putting-off readers.

It is ultimately , I think, a competition between interest and accessibility, the optimal combination being high interest and high accessibility and , obviously, the worse one being low interesting and low accessibility.

Sorry if this is too obvious, maybe somewhat-circular.

 

[leroyjenkens]

I think the minimum amount of scientific knowledge people should be given at school is way too low.
If you think, for example, as my friend did, that you can power a car by putting a fan in front of it, and as the car gets going, the wind turns the fan and the fan charges a battery, which in turn makes the car move, then the school system has failed you.

 

[phinds]

I think you continue to miss the point. People don't CARE how high the "cost to entry" is, they are just not interested. THAT is the point. They are just not interested.

All of the clever tutorials in the world are not going to change that

 

[WWGD]

I am sorry, but I disagree with you. There is an internal evaluation of costs and benefits; I actually believe the default is that people are interested, but that somehow gets distorted along the way. Up till now, neither of us has a good-enough way of supporting our beliefs, but in my opinion, based on my experience there is a natural interest.

 

[phinds]

I am sorry, but I disagree with you. There is an internal evaluation of costs and benefits; I actually believe the default is that people are interested, but that somehow gets distorted along the way. Up till now, neither of us has a good-enough way of supporting our beliefs, but in my opinion, based on my experience there is a natural interest.

Well, I admire your optimism.

 

[ZombieFeynman]

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.

I could go on and on. Many areas require hundreds or thousands of hours of careful practice before any payoff or benefits are seen by the practitioner. I don't think it's unreasonable that fewer people want to take part in those activities over those that are easier. Watching sports and learning some rules and names of players is pretty easy and quite enjoyable to many people and a plethora of people are quite good at it. Sitting at a bar and drinking beer with friends is easy to do and very fun. Many are good at that.

 

[ShayanJ]

You should accept, that the motivation for learning, is having a question and a will to find an answer.
Some people are that much busy with their lives, that no question comes in their minds, Of course I mean questions leading to science!
For some, they are either less busy or care more, so the question comes, but they don't bother to go for the answer.
For some, the question comes and they go for the answer, but they don't bother to actually learning it, they just say "Phew...there is an answer, now I'm OK!".
For some, the question comes, they go for the answer, and learn only some of it. They don't continue. But some of these, think that much is enough and they feel they have become scientists. When I see such people, I really prefer laymen don't go for science!

I think, the good thing is establishing some kind of education system for laymen. Not something like a university. It may be only a couple of books or videos. The point is, this system should guide people through the different levels I explained. First giving them the warning that its only a child's play and nothing serious. Second, giving them some questions. And third, giving them some very very simplified but completely right answers.
This way, anyone with a slightest interest in knowing, will know, and anyone who doesn't like to know...well, who cares?!
But that system should be maintained by real scientists so they can explain things really well that people don't go the wrong way. If something can be explained simply, it should be, otherwise it shouldn't be explained. As Einstein puts it: "Everything should be simplified as much as possible, but not simpler!"
But people should really understand that what they know isn't enough for giving new ideas.I'm really sick of reading ******** pseudo-physical things on the internet!

 

[Nugatory]

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.

It's not just the hard sciences. A (native English speaking) adult who is ignorant of Shakespeare is just as common and no less appalling than an adult who is ignorant of Newtonian mechanics.

As for why? There are really only two reasons why people learn things: Either they have a use for them, or they enjoy them. Very few people have a daily use for either literature or Newtonian mechanics, so only those who enjoy these subjects invest substantial skull sweat in studying and retaining them. And of course if you enjoy them you are naturally motivated to go deep into them - and that opens up the gulf to which you refer.

 

[jz92wjaz]

I went to elementary in the 90s and was drilled a ton in 2nd grade. Addition, Subtraction, Multiplication, and Division. We continued to practice in the 3rd grade. My elementary school contributed to a large number of the kids in advanced math classes in my Junior High and High School.

I think people like being taught about Physics, but it's more of a passing interest than a passion. That's been my experience. I wrote a paper in English about black holes, and gave a presentation, and the class was very interested. However, I don't think many of them would have been interested in gathering the information on their own.

 

[BHL 20]

Physics does not have any objective, inherent good. Yes our knowledge of physics can be used to improve technology and hence our lives, but you specifically refer to people who won't be professional scientists. In that case, the only good physics has is the good their brains attribute to it. Assuming that intelligent people have equal probability of developing an interest in a field they encounter, and considering the number of existing fields, only a small fraction of people will have a special interest in physics.

I'm also a great believer in division a labour, people are better off specializing and optimizing their performance in their main job. The more productive everyone is the higher the general standard of living.

 

[WWGD]

Well, I admire your optimism.

Believe me, I am no optimist; it is just my impression. I do have trouble understanding the issue because I have always had the opposite problem: I am interested in just-about everything and my problem is mainly in not losing focus while trying to learn too-many things at the same time.

 

[MattRob]

Better question: how can someone not dedicate their life to the goal of learning as much as they can and pushing the frontiers of human knowledge? How can they not find the nature and mysteries of reality and of being so compelling as to drive their interest to try and learn everything about the nature of time and space?

How can you not be a scientist, driven by curiosity to understand the nature of reality?

As someone who feels that curiosity, I have a hard time imagining not caring.

It would also be nice if the 40% to 60% of the people in the US (depending on which poll or study you believe) didn't believe in Aliens, ghosts, angels, and other crap but they DO whether I like it or not (and I do NOT).

What, so we're alone in the universe?

Okay, I know, you meant UFO conspiracy theorists and the sort I just couldn't help but point out that while I agree there's a whole lot of bogus stuff out there and generally what people believe in is pretty dubious, technically speaking, there almost certainly is life in the cosmos, so if I take "do you believe in aliens?" strictly at literal, face value, without any implications or anything else, then "yes, it's hard to imagine a cosmos this vast is empty."

I should check the rules and start a thread on that... I hope there aren't rules against it...

 

[phinds]

Better question: how can someone not dedicate their life to the goal of learning as much as they can and pushing the frontiers of human knowledge?

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.

I definitely believe in the existence of life throughout the universe but the term "aliens" as I used it means, as you are clearly aware, something completely different. Aliens HERE is just as stupid as ghosts and angels even though in the technical sense you point out, aliens do exist.
[/QUOTE]

 

[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.