Thoughts on the Complexity of Modern Science
Science today is incredibly complex. Anyone who ever did scientific research knows that, but many in the general public seem to be completely unaware of this. I think this is a point where science communication can improve.
- “I listened to some science TV show, and now I have come up with my theory.”
This could have a chance if the TV show would fully cover the topic. It does not.
- “Scientists don’t know detail X, therefore they know nothing.”
- “Scientists were once wrong in point Y, therefore we cannot trust any result.”
Frequently seen as a response to scientific arguments against various crackpottery.
It is not that easy. From xkcd
If you are unaware that theories are backed up by hundreds to thousands of measurements, each based on various other publications and often years of research covering tons of details and various cross-checks, then those misconceptions can come up. Can we do something against that?
When I get asked what I am working on in particle physics, I always try to give both the overview but also an impression of daily work: Yes, the long-term task can be something like the search for new particles. But what you do is more like calibrating the response of some detector part to particles at different detector temperatures, different radiation damage, or one of the hundreds of other tasks involved in the overall publication that produces one round of news in the popular press (if you are lucky). I’m not sure how that can be translated to TV shows, newspapers, and so on. “We search for new particles” sounds much more interesting than “I’m working on some tiny detail of the search”. But then the news reports “scientists looked for new particles”, drop one or two names of leading scientists, and it gives the impression scientists would “search for new particles” all day.
Another aspect: Science taught in school is often very basic – Newtonian physics for example is very simple compared to more recent theories. You cannot start with quantum field theory, obviously, but if you see Newtonian physics only you could assume quantum field theory is similar to the way Newtonian physics is taught: Do one or two experiments and then write down a few formulas. If that would be true, then sure, be very skeptical. But it is not true.
This is also related to funding: if you don’t understand the complexity of modern science, you don’t understand why experiments can cost billions of Euros/Dollars. Funding decisions are not made directly by popular vote, but public opinion does influence science funding in general.
What do you think? Can science popularisation improve in that aspect, and if yes, how?
Working on a PhD for one of the LHC experiments. Particle physics is great, but I am interested in other parts of physics as well.
“Can you point to the specific law that says this?”
No. It is part of the laws which empower corporations to exist. These vary by jurisdiction. But it is black letter law.
Note that directors must promote shareholder value. However they are usually given broad authority to do so. Thus long term thinking is not disallowed including charity aimed at developing corporate goodwill.
[URL=’http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/2012/05/case-law-on-the-fiduciary-duty-of-directors-to-maximize-the-wealth-of-corporate-shareholders.html’]Here’s a discussion[/URL] on the point including some case law.
“Hi Hornbein:
As I remember the movie [U]Inherit the Wind[/U], the jury was not asked to decide whether evolution was truth or lies. Rather, the jury had to decide if Scopes broke the Laws of Tennessee when he taught about evolution in his classroom.
”
That is true.
Scopes was convicted and fined one dollar. This was considered a victory for Scopes. Essentially the jury found that he was guilty as charged but the law was silly. Presumably the jury did not believe that evolution was a lie originating with the Devil, as a current leading presidential candidate has stated.
“Dare I mention the Scopes trial?”
Hi Hornbein:
As I remember the movie [U]Inherit the Wind[/U], the jury was not asked to decide whether evolution was truth or lies. Rather, the jury had to decide if Scopes broke the Laws of Tennessee when he taught about evolution in his classroom. I found a long discussion of the inaccuracies of the movie, but I have not yet had the opportunity to read it all through.
[INDENT][URL]http://www.beliefnet.com/News/1999/12/The-Scopes-Trial-Vs-Inherit-The-Wind.aspx?p=1[/URL][/INDENT]
By only a quick look through of the article I did not find that the point I made above about the jury was an inaccuracy.
Regards,
Buzz
“First, is this website put out by Fox News?
Second, some of those “counterexamples” look like open problems in physics to me. I may be out of date, but I don’t recall the exact rest mass of a neutrino for example. Questioning science is what scientists are supposed to do. General relativity does have some conceptual inconsistencies with entanglement. Clearly our understanding of something is flawed. While the tone of the wiki article is a little too dismissive of a solid theory, it is not inherently wrong to point out flaws which should eventually be explained. I don’t like their shotgun approach of throwing out “problems” when many of them seem objections to specific models rather than the theory as a whole, or otherwise poorly researched. (Predictions about number of black holes may use GR, but GR doesn’t rely on them.) Perhaps a little more work should be put in the article by someone with more knowledge and less axe grinding.
Third, their equating GR with moral relativism is just wrong. It’s wrong when they do it. It’s wrong when their political opponents do it (if they do). Other than sharing “relative” in their names, I don’t see what they have in common. Still, crazier things have happened.
Finally, not everyone on the internet tells the truth. This problem is far broader than science education. Caveat Emptor.”
I was completely referring to the parts where they use their moral values to contradict relativity. It is not put out by Fox News but these are from the same people that watch Fox News, and Fox News uses the same disregard to science. My point in that post was that the disregard of science can be in the context that this insight was written, just as bad or even worse than the misunderstanding of it, and does lead to crackpots.
“I would hate the possibility of a jury to be able to decide whether evolution is a lie or not.”
Dare I mention the Scopes trial?
“Hi phinds:
I think you may have misinterpreted my post, by exaggerating the limited remedy I suggested. The remedy I suggested was simply allowing some appropriate punishment decided by a judge with limitations set by legislation — not censorship or shutting down any media corporation. Are you suggesting that any punishment of a media corporation for lying, no matter how mild, is too horrible to contemplate? I understand that in some cases juries may make wrong decisions, and sometime people become victims of these errors. Why is so horrible that this might sometime happen to a media corporation?
Regards,
Buzz”
I stand by what I said.
“That is a genuinely horrifying thought.”
Hi phinds:
I think you may have misinterpreted my post, by exaggerating the limited remedy I suggested. The remedy I suggested was simply allowing some appropriate punishment decided by a judge with limitations set by legislation — not censorship or shutting down any media corporation. Are you suggesting that any punishment of a media corporation for lying, no matter how mild, is too horrible to contemplate? I understand that in some cases juries may make wrong decisions, and sometime people become victims of these errors. Why is so horrible that this might sometime happen to a media corporation?
Regards,
Buzz
“Hi phinds:
Perhaps an improved model might be that with suitable legislation courts can be formed with juries and expert witnesses. If a jury finds that a public lie has been told, then the media organization telling that lie can be punished. I would not expect this to work perfectly, but perhaps it would provide for some improvement.
Regards,
Buzz”
That is a genuinely horrifying thought. I think you don’t quite “get” what a free press really means or perhaps you live in some la-la land where there are no “experts” who would swear on a bible the creationism is truth and Evolution is a lie and where juries can’t be intimidated and so forth and where “suitable” legislation is whatever the dictator of the day says it is. You might give some thought as to why the First Amendment to the Constitution is the FIRST amendment.
“Corporations are required by law to provide maximum monetary return to their shareholders. So allowing them to lie legally almost forces them to lie in their shareholder’s interests.”
“Can you point to the specific law that says this?”
I don’t know of any such law. But there may be a shareholder lawsuit against a CEO who is failing to maximize income. If lying is profitable and legal, then it is his/her duty to the shareholders to do so and/or hire others to do so.
“When a corporation is caught in a lie from which they have profited in any significant sense, that becomes grounds for a civil lawsuit.”
Hi Choppy:
I am not sure about this, but I expect someone with better research skills than I (perhaps a lawyer) might be able to find some case law. I vaguely remember hearing about a Supreme Court ruling making it especially difficult to sue a media corporation regarding the content of what is published or broadcast – even libel. An individual who self publishes a book is much easier to sue for libel than a media corporation.
Since 1886 when a justice voiced a ground rule in a pre-argument statement re Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company
[INDENT][URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad_Co[/URL].[/INDENT]
corporations have had rights previously available only to people. This state of affairs in current times is often summarized as, “Corporations are people.” From more recent decisions, one might possibly conclude that corporations have [U]more[/U] rights than people, and many fewer responsibilities.
Regards,
Buzz
”
Perhaps an improved model might be that with suitable legislation courts can be formed with juries and expert witnesses. If a jury finds that a public lie has been told, then the media organization telling that lie can be punished. I would not expect this to work perfectly, but perhaps it would provide for some improvement.
”
When a corporation is caught in a lie from which they have profited in any significant sense, that becomes grounds for a civil lawsuit. And when people are caught doing that they can be charged criminally with fraud.
“Corporations are required by law to provide maximum monetary return to their shareholders. So allowing them to lie legally almost forces them to lie in their shareholder’s interests.
”
Can you point to the specific law that says this?
“Hi phinds:
Perhaps an improved model might be that with suitable legislation courts can be formed with juries and expert witnesses. If a jury finds that a public lie has been told, then the media organization telling that lie can be punished. I would not expect this to work perfectly, but perhaps it would provide for some improvement.
Regards,
Buzz”
I would hate the possibility of a jury to be able to decide whether evolution is a lie or not.
“It would not be in any of our interests to have laws that dictate that news be “truthful” because then you get into the issue of who’s going to define “truthful”.”
Hi phinds:
Perhaps an improved model might be that with suitable legislation courts can be formed with juries and expert witnesses. If a jury finds that a public lie has been told, then the media organization telling that lie can be punished. I would not expect this to work perfectly, but perhaps it would provide for some improvement.
Regards,
Buzz
“A simple legal change would fix this. “And how would any “simple legal change” not be the first step in the destruction of a free press?
“On the issue of a media outlet lying to the public, although I find it utterly disgusting that they want to do it, and DO do it (which causes some of the problems that this thread is addressing), I agree 100% that the law is on the right side of this issue. A free press is an incredibly important element of our democracy. It is one of the first things that goes when dictators take over a country.
It would not be in any of our interests to have laws that dictate that news be “truthful” because then you get into the issue of who’s going to define “truthful”. As has been pointed out in this thread, bias confirmation is human nature and I don’t want a creationist, for example, to be be able to get a legislature to dictate that things about evolution should not be allowed in news because it is not truthful, according to them.
This extends to the right of the pop-science shows to put out the crap they put out that is a big part of the creation of the problems that caused this thread to be started in the first place.”
The law not only dictates that networks can lie, it dictates that they must lie.
Corporations are required by law to provide maximum monetary return to their shareholders. So allowing them to lie legally almost forces them to lie in their shareholder’s interests.
And yes, when the question arises between spending money to get the science right (which also tends to lower audience share) or telling a warm and fuzzy lie with glitzy eye candy, a network would be legally required to go with the lie.
A simple legal change would fix this. Alas, the truth has never been popular.
“While the current conversation is off topic, I believe Fox News is very relevant to the current issue we are discussing. If we are talking about people being crackpots, take their complete disregard for science. This is what a little too much Fox News can do:
[URL=’http://www.conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Relativity’]www.conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Relativity[/URL]
On the topic of educators not knowing “real science”, what if the people who wrote that article were science teachers… Oh wait, they are. If people are taught to deny science, they will never accept it, and this is where a lot of the problems addressed in this insight and in its comments come from (in fact, similar tactics are used to disregard relativity in the article I linked as are used in the comic in the insight).”
First, is this website put out by Fox News?
Second, some of those “counterexamples” look like open problems in physics to me. I may be out of date, but I don’t recall the exact rest mass of a neutrino for example. Questioning science is what scientists are supposed to do. General relativity does have some conceptual inconsistencies with entanglement. Clearly our understanding of something is flawed. While the tone of the wiki article is a little too dismissive of a solid theory, it is not inherently wrong to point out flaws which should eventually be explained. I don’t like their shotgun approach of throwing out “problems” when many of them seem objections to specific models rather than the theory as a whole, or otherwise poorly researched. (Predictions about number of black holes may use GR, but GR doesn’t rely on them.) Perhaps a little more work should be put in the article by someone with more knowledge and less axe grinding.
Third, their equating GR with moral relativism is just wrong. It’s wrong when they do it. It’s wrong when their political opponents do it (if they do). Other than sharing “relative” in their names, I don’t see what they have in common. Still, crazier things have happened.
Finally, not everyone on the internet tells the truth. This problem is far broader than science education. Caveat Emptor.
On the issue of a media outlet lying to the public, although I find it utterly disgusting that they want to do it, and DO do it (which causes some of the problems that this thread is addressing), I agree 100% that the law is on the right side of this issue. A free press is an incredibly important element of our democracy. It is one of the first things that goes when dictators take over a country.
It would not be in any of our interests to have laws that dictate that news be “truthful” because then you get into the issue of who’s going to define “truthful”. As has been pointed out in this thread, bias confirmation is human nature and I don’t want a creationist, for example, to be be able to get a legislature to dictate that things about evolution should not be allowed in news because it is not truthful, according to them.
This extends to the right of the pop-science shows to put out the crap they put out that is a big part of the creation of the problems that caused this thread to be started in the first place.
Exxon Mobil is one the of the most powerful organizations in the world. It is in their financial interest to have the public disbelieve in science.
While the current conversation is off topic, I believe Fox News is very relevant to the current issue we are discussing. If we are talking about people being crackpots, take their complete disregard for science. This is what a little too much Fox News can do:
[URL=”http://www.conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Relativity”]www.conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Relativity[/URL]
On the topic of educators not knowing “real science”, what if the people who wrote that article were science teachers… Oh wait, they are. If people are taught to deny science, they will never accept it, and this is where a lot of the problems addressed in this insight and in its comments come from (in fact, similar tactics are used to disregard relativity in the article I linked as are used in the comic in the insight).
Let’s bring this discussion back on topic please :smile:
“I was not being anti-religious, I was being facetious. and I guess that caused you to miss my point. “Fox News viewers” is just a euphemism for all people not Democrats. If the PF rules mean that we should be respectful of everyone, then we can’t make exceptions. Everyone means everyone.”
I disagree with that characterization. I’m a Republican and a Christian. I have little respect for a news network that went to court to defend their [URL=’https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre’]right to lie to their viewers[/URL]. Other networks hopefully try to get the correct information but fail due to the need to present complex information in a simple format. If Fox’s successful legal argument is to be believed, they don’t see a need to even try for the truth.
Of course now that the precedent has been set, no news network can really be trusted. It is sad.
“I’m happy to go along w/ that but that one is probably against forum rules so let’s don’t go there.”
I was not being anti-religious, I was being facetious. and I guess that caused you to miss my point. “Fox News viewers” is just a euphemism for all people not Democrats. If the PF rules mean that we should be respectful of everyone, then we can’t make exceptions. Everyone means everyone.
“I’m happy to go along w/ that but that one is probably against forum rules so let’s don’t go there.”:frown::DD
“Don’t forget a similar exception for people who believe in God. :smile:”
I’m happy to go along w/ that but that one is probably against forum rules so let’s don’t go there.
“I agree w/ your sentiment in general but I think an exception should be made for FOX “news” :smile:”
Don’t forget a similar exception for people who believe in God. :smile:
“Why do people who would never tolerate racial, sexist, or ethnic slurs think that it is OK to inject political slurs and put downs into any an all topics? Is that not a personal attack on classes of people depending on which TV channels they watch?”
I agree w/ your sentiment in general but I think an exception should be made for FOX “news” :smile:
“NOVA is an excellent source for informing the public about science, but I am guessing that for each viewer of NOVA there are more than a hundred viewers of FOX NEWS.”
Why do people who would never tolerate racial, sexist, or ethnic slurs think that it is OK to inject political slurs and put downs into any an all topics? Is that not a personal attack on classes of people depending on which TV channels they watch?
“It’s not surprising to me that many scientists suffer from the “curse of knowledge”, for the simple reason that many scientists often socialize with or primarily communicate with other scientists who are in general more likely to understand their work (or if not understand their work, at least understand the processes in which scientific discoveries are made), and therefore can’t conceive that there are people who don’t have that understanding.
I agree with Choppy that part of the way to address this, and to improve public understanding of science is for everyday scientists to more actively engage with the public, by say for example, volunteering their time to visit schools to explain the work they do (and more generally explain the actual process of doing science, as opposed to listing the discoveries as is often done in popular science books/movies/TV shows), and providing non-technical summaries of their work. I am also definitely in agreement in making scientific journals more accessible to the public.”
“In my opinion, the way “popular science” is presenting itself, is a necessity and an excuse at the same time. Anyone, not having some serious relevant scientific background, is not willing to get intimidated by math details, so if he takes what he sees on a such TV show literally, he will end up having a lot of misconceptions. And this is usually the case. Cannot get better than that. ”
That may be true, but most popular science I have seen does not approach the “best possible under the circumstances.” There are some science popularizers who have done an excellent job, but others not. And some are humbugs.
I might take a whack at science popularization myself. I believe, rightly or wrongly, that I can do better than most of what I’ve come across. But first I’ll have to learn it thoroughly.
“Something like this. Specifically what’s wrong is that most scientists seem to be suffering a very bad case of “curse of knowledge.” Knowing what they know, they can’t conceive of a mind that doesn’t also know it, and they don’t have any idea what that mind needs to hear to understand what science is actually up to.
However, it’s never been considered part of the job description of a scientist to be able to communicate to lay people, so this isn’t a shortcoming. If, though, scientists perceive that being misunderstood is becoming disadvantageous, then it’s up to them to figure out how to explain themselves and not leave it to the popular media.”
It’s not surprising to me that many scientists suffer from the “curse of knowledge”, for the simple reason that many scientists often socialize with or primarily communicate with other scientists who are in general more likely to understand their work (or if not understand their work, at least understand the processes in which scientific discoveries are made), and therefore can’t conceive that there are people who don’t have that understanding.
I agree with Choppy that part of the way to address this, and to improve public understanding of science is for everyday scientists to more actively engage with the public, by say for example, volunteering their time to visit schools to explain the work they do and providing non-technical summaries of their work. I am also definitely in agreement in making scientific journals more accessible to the public.
In my opinion, the way “popular science” is presenting itself, is a necessity and an excuse at the same time. Anyone, not having some serious relevant scientific background, is not willing to get intimidated by math details, so if he takes what he sees on a such TV show literally, he will end up having a lot of misconceptions. And this is usually the case. Cannot get better than that. That’s the necessity part. The excuse part, has to do with the motivations behind PopSci, variations of which are not the same in each case. Various purposes are served in various such cases, but I am not a experienced salesperson to have the expertise to get into the details of it, nor I condemn that, because it has its role in the economic culture. Thing is, that by its very nature, cannot get better than it is, because in order to be such, the educational level of most people will need to change substantially – it is somewhat difficult I believe, for most people, to have the skills and/or the will to be scientists, but even if this could potentially happen, then PopSci would not have any reason to exist and it would cease to do so – at least in its present form. Of course, I do think that this would be a great achievement for science, but at the present instant, what anyone with no or small scientific knowledge is good to do, is listen only to what is presented, what is its purpose and consequences and not about explanations in over – simplistic – and unfortunately in many cases naïve, terms and ways. Anyone can dig a subject deeper at his/her own leisure, using the right resources, that are really abundant on the web and learn things In a more proper way. I don’t think that scientists can do many things about that, because if everything could be sufficiently explained in layman’s terms, then what would be the real substance of science: we live in a complex world and proper explanation of many things in nature, require deep theoretical thoughts and a multitude of experiments. So, a deep change in some social and educational structures would be needed, in order for substantial changes to be realized. In its present form, it’s more of a personal issue for anyone to be well informed about anything.
“Popular science paints a false picture of how science at least as much as early education. It gives lists of facts, historical notes, and cool pictures. But it doesn’t dig deep.”
I’d actually say the problem is that they get too deep in the material, and shows the “cool stuff” but not any of the math that is required. Many shows go deep into GR but don’t use the word tensor.
Popular science paints a false picture of how science at least as much as early education. It gives lists of facts, historical notes, and cool pictures. But it doesn’t dig deep.
I’m trying to produce a show right now that would be different, and I’m running into funding difficulties doing it. I’d like to create something that is about scientific thought, not facts; we want to actually analyze our subjects, and in a way that doesn’t bore people who understand the basics. Math is part of it. I don’t want the topics to be so intimidating that no one watches, but today’s popular science keeps all math as far away from the content as possible. So I run into a lot of people who ‘love science’, but hate math and have no idea how to use scientific reasoning.
To tie it back to the ongoing discussion, I believe that teaching people how to think objectively and scientifically can help with a lot of problems. Science doesn’t tell us what decisions to make, necessarily, but it does tell us how to go about making those decisions. It’s a bit esoteric to say that, but it’s also, in my opinion, better than what we have now.
“I’m not sure I understand this point. You can’t expect an economic system to reward you unless you are contributing something that it values. Science is very well rewarded when it produces things like MRI machines, smart phones, vaccines, etc. You can’t simply put people with high IQs at the top of an economic pyramid and pay them to do whatever their hearts desire.
I didn’t say it should be “required.” But if you want more people to know what it is that you do, you start by making them aware of what it is that you do, and explain why it’s relevant. In some fields, it’s self-evident. But with science the real-world relevance can lag substantially behind the investment of money, time and resources.
Your carpenter example is not a good one. You don’t have to get a skilled trade to explain a skill because the skill needs to be performed to given standard (building code for example). If it’s not, the consumer has recourse. And beyond that, trades have their work inspected all the time. When I buy a house, I both inspect it thoroughly myself and I hire someone who knows the local code to go through it with a fine tooth comb.
The key point here is that the other fields that require similar levels of training are professions. These are doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc. If you’re a doctor it’s easy to convince someone or the taxpayers in general to reimburse you for exercising your skill set on you because they understand that it’s likely to cure whatever is ailing them. If you’re a lawyer you can expect reimbursement because your skill set will help a client to draft a contract that will protect him or her, or navigate a set of problems with very serious consequences. The professions establish colleges that act to ensure those skills meet a certain standard so that the public doesn’t need to evaluate individual practitioners.
But science isn’t a profession – at least not in that sense. There are no licences or professional standards. It may be embarrassing if you have to retract a journal article, but in most cases no one is going to sue a scientist for making a mistake.”
Economics is about distributing goods and services. Yet the developed countries have past the point of needing more goods. Now we need to modify or laws/social structures to reward services in a fair way. While this begs the question of what is fair, I don’t think most people want to be weighed down with a blizzard of paperwork. Yet this is the road we are going down. Regulatory structures encourage legal and financial services while discouraging more useful (IMO) arts and sciences.
Perhaps it’s time to think about where we’re headed?
I did not suggest high IQ people should be allowed to sit at the top and hand down arbitrary decision. That’s the system we have now. Lawyers, financiers, and drug dealers operate unchecked. My suggestion is to try to arrange our legal system so proper behavior (like contributing to arts and sciences) is rewarded while lying, cheating, and murdering is discouraged. We are drifting by default into a system where drug dealers own banks which threaten people then hire lawyers to become untouchable.
Professions require clients (among other things). The client in science is everyone which is a poor business model and has prevented the development of science as a profession. It is likely the changes I envision would encourage or perhaps require the development of professional standards.
“I agree with most of you assessment. Now how about offering solutions.”
“I learned to be very careful about when, where, and how I presented my work to other physicists, because the reaction was invariably dismissive as soon as they detected deviation from standard practice or beliefs.” — David Hestenes, Oersted Medal Lecture 2002.
He was trying to get them to use geometric algebra a.k.a. Clifford algebra.
[USER=405866]@mfb[/USER], you’ve certainly sparked an interesting discussion. This is the kind of thing that makes this forum great.
EDIT: You should ask [USER=1]@Greg Bernhardt[/USER] for a raise, from nothing to about 1.3 times nothing. :smile:
“I think one big thing that can help is for scientists themselves to talk more openly about what they do. The scientific community can’t rely on the entertainment industry to popularize science, and then complain when they get it wrong. ”
Something like this. Specifically what’s wrong is that most scientists seem to be suffering a very bad case of “curse of knowledge.” Knowing what they know, they can’t conceive of a mind that doesn’t also know it, and they don’t have any idea what that mind needs to hear to understand what science is actually up to.
However, it’s never been considered part of the job description of a scientist to be able to communicate to lay people, so this isn’t a shortcoming. If, though, scientists perceive that being misunderstood is becoming disadvantageous, then it’s up to them to figure out how to explain themselves and not leave it to the popular media.
“I think we need a new economic model for an intellectual economy. Our legal and social values were developed for an industrial economy. They reward behaviors that produce real goods. Mass market art (T.V., etc.) is aimed at keeping producing workers healthy and happy. Science (and less banal art) is poorly rewarded unless it supports those now non-functional goals.”
I’m not sure I understand this point. You can’t expect an economic system to reward you unless you are contributing something that it values. Science is very well rewarded when it produces things like MRI machines, smart phones, vaccines, etc. You can’t simply put people with high IQs at the top of an economic pyramid and pay them to do whatever their hearts desire.
“The idea that scientists should be required to volunteer to act as teachers seems odd to me. The two jobs are quite different (at least on the general public level). Would we ask a carpenter to volunteer his time to explain how the joists were laid in a new house before it could be sold?”
I didn’t say it should be “required.” But if you want more people to know what it is that you do, you start by making them aware of what it is that you do, and explain why it’s relevant. In some fields, it’s self-evident. But with science the real-world relevance can lag substantially behind the investment of money, time and resources.
Your carpenter example is not a good one. You don’t have to get a skilled trade to explain a skill because the skill needs to be performed to given standard (building code for example). If it’s not, the consumer has recourse. And beyond that, trades have their work inspected all the time. When I buy a house, I both inspect it thoroughly myself and I hire someone who knows the local code to go through it with a fine tooth comb.
“Scientists have historically made good money when they could leverage their high IQs to manipulate the system. But otherwise they tend to lag behind other professions requiring similar levels of learning/talents. To me this indicates a flaw in the economic system that needs fixing, not that scientists should become media manipulators.”
The key point here is that the other fields that require similar levels of training are professions. These are doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc. If you’re a doctor it’s easy to convince someone or the taxpayers in general to reimburse you for exercising your skill set on you because they understand that it’s likely to cure whatever is ailing them. If you’re a lawyer you can expect reimbursement because your skill set will help a client to draft a contract that will protect him or her, or navigate a set of problems with very serious consequences. The professions establish colleges that act to ensure those skills meet a certain standard so that the public doesn’t need to evaluate individual practitioners.
But science isn’t a profession – at least not in that sense. There are no licences or professional standards. It may be embarrassing if you have to retract a journal article, but in most cases no one is going to sue a scientist for making a mistake.
”
What do people have against relativity?”
1. They didn’t learn it in high school.
2. Some of the implications (time dilation and length contraction) contradict our everyday observations.
“”What do you think? Can science popularisation improve in that aspect, and if yes, how?”
I think one big thing that can help is for scientists themselves to talk more openly about what they do. The scientific community can’t rely on the entertainment industry to popularize science, and then complain when they get it wrong. Nor can the scientific community hope that politicians won’t spin their work and results to reinforce their agendas.
”
I think we need a new economic model for an intellectual economy. Our legal and social values were developed for an industrial economy. They reward behaviors that produce real goods. Mass market art (T.V., etc.) is aimed at keeping producing workers healthy and happy. Science (and less banal art) is poorly rewarded unless it supports those now non-functional goals.
The idea that scientists should be required to volunteer to act as teachers seems odd to me. The two jobs are quite different (at least on the general public level). Would we ask a carpenter to volunteer his time to explain how the joists were laid in a new house before it could be sold?
Scientists have historically made good money when they could leverage their high IQs to manipulate the system. But otherwise they tend to lag behind other professions requiring similar levels of learning/talents. To me this indicates a flaw in the economic system that needs fixing, not that scientists should become media manipulators.
I don’t have a solution, but offering more science prizes seems like a good idea. Paying scientists for learning is also an obvious step. But I’m hardly the first to decry the student loan situation.
“Using the word theory the way you do is probably what sets off crackpot alarms if you’ve been accused of being a crackpot. I tend to roll my eyes when someone claims to be developing a new theory.
From what you describe, I’d say you’re constructing your understanding and knowledge of a topic, not a new theory. One way you do that is to take your current understanding and test it. When you encounter non-sensical or puzzling results, you figure out where you went wrong with your reasoning or where your understanding of a topic may have been flawed and try to resolve the inconsistency. That’s completely normal. That’s how you learn. The hallmark of the crackpot, though, is the refusal to learn from one’s mistakes. According to them, their understanding isn’t wrong; everyone else’s is. This is the mistake you want to avoid.
The insight touches on what allows the crackpot to even entertain the idea that they’re right and everyone else is wrong. Part of that is not understanding the process of science. When you don’t understand all of the work that goes into research and what the research actually says, it becomes easy to dismiss established scientific knowledge and theories as being based on someone’s whims.”
Yes, as I said, it’s more of a hypothesis.
“So first of all, I find this insight to be very interesting. However, as a crackpot by some definitions, I must disagree with you and phinds on one point. I do study actual science and calculus with that science. I learned on this forum to stay away from popsci, but still, I come up with “theories”. No, as a middle schooler I do not believe these theories will go anywhere. What I do is I make a theory based on math and what I have learned so far from other sources, and then I look for what I did wrong. Sometimes I need to ask a professional about what I did wrong. In fact, I learn better from actually thinking about it and then finding a problem in my thinking and/or math. I do agree that some people do need to learn real science before making a statement like “special relativity is wrong” but some people (like me) learn from thinking, challenging the theories and finding out why I’m wrong. Just something to think about. Overall, however, a great insight.”
Using the word [i]theory[/i] the way you do is probably what sets off crackpot alarms if you’ve been accused of being a crackpot. I tend to roll my eyes when someone claims to be developing a new theory.
From what you describe, I’d say you’re constructing your understanding and knowledge of a topic, not a new theory. One way you do that is to take your current understanding and test it. When you encounter non-sensical or puzzling results, you figure out where you went wrong with your reasoning or where your understanding of a topic may have been flawed and try to resolve the inconsistency. That’s completely normal. That’s how you learn. The hallmark of the crackpot, though, is the refusal to learn from one’s mistakes. According to them, their understanding isn’t wrong; everyone else’s is. This is the mistake you want to avoid.
The insight touches on what allows the crackpot to even entertain the idea that they’re right and everyone else is wrong. Part of that is not understanding the process of science. When you don’t understand all of the work that goes into research and what the research actually says, it becomes easy to dismiss established scientific knowledge and theories as being based on someone’s whims.
”
[LIST]
[*]Scientists volunteering time to go out into the community: giving public lectures, coming into classrooms, and speaking to teachers. I volunteer with a local program called “Scientists and Engineers in the Classroom” because I think programs like this are very important for helping studends and teachers learn about how science happens.[/LIST]”[LIST]
[/LIST]
Funny you mention this, after reading this I recalled something from a course called “Historical and Social Aspects of Physics”.
It was mentioned that at some time in the 20th century science was part of regular culture in Germany. (I belief it was during the Weimar Republic era)
Meaning people would go to public lectures like we go to plays or movies today.
Continuing this train of thought I figured that universities could easily arrange for such a thing in this day and age.
I don’t think this is commonplace here (haven’t heard about it at least).
It could be a monthly thing, I’m quite confident you’d find volunteers in every department.
A gifted presenter would include news reports of e.g. the loop-hole free Bell test which over here was basically announced as “Einstein was wrong after all”.
“What do you think? Can science popularisation improve in that aspect, and if yes, how?”
I think one big thing that can help is for scientists themselves to talk more openly about what they do. The scientific community can’t rely on the entertainment industry to popularize science, and then complain when they get it wrong. Nor can the scientific community hope that politicians won’t spin their work and results to reinforce their agendas.
Small things that can help:
[LIST]
[*]More open-access academic articles. I realise there are complications that come with this. It’s not free to produce these things. But when information is locked away in the ivory tower of academia all the outsiders can do is speculate.
[*]Authors providing non-technical summaries of their work. I’ve noticed a few journals in my field now requiring this.
[*]More non-technical summary presentations or non-technical components of technical presentations at major conferences. Mass media are more likely to cover these events and report on what’s found when it’s easier for the journalists to understand what’s happening.
[*]Scientists volunteering time to go out into the community: giving public lectures, coming into classrooms, and speaking to teachers. I volunteer with a local program called “Scientists and Engineers in the Classroom” because I think programs like this are very important for helping studends and teachers learn about how science happens.
[*]More blogging or popular content coming from scientists about what it is they do. (And yes, that’s a kudo to Insites!) While I agree that more people like Feynman and Sagan can help, I think it would help a lot more if “everyday” scientists were more vocal about what they do on social media.
[/LIST]
“Is it? If it was, we would not have a forum for relativity, biology, chemistry, homework help, etc.”
I think it was intended to say the standards which physics forums holds as standard consensus of mainstream science in each category?
“Physics Forum is dedicated to advancing the standard model.”
Is it? If it was, we would not have a forum for relativity, biology, chemistry, homework help, etc.
“Unfortunately you are using theory in the layman’s sense. What you are coming up with are at best hypotheses. It is good to think up new ideas but calling them theories without rigorous testing does an injustice to science.
BoB”
Yes, it is more of a hypothesis than a theory.
the complexity of any science field happens at the level of our mind. same as one could say mathss is easier than any other science subject. also some people remind and understand better when you explain the subject to the minor details to them why others (which i am part of ) prefer to understand it on its own than waiting for lecturers to give them the explanations.
just trying to say complexity is at the level of individuals
I think we need another Feynman. However I still have to watch/read some work by Sagan to fully appreciate his efforts.
However I find it hard to believe anyone can match let alone surpass Feynman’s QED.
He not only simplifies the theory but also mentions why it is difficult to do cutting edge science.
The latter is what lacks in most popular accounts but also in education. Which I understand since most teachers haven’t gotten close to the “cutting edge” over here.
But that last point is for another discussion.
“Ok, I just picked up an implication (that may or may not have been there) in both your post and the insight that these theories all come from ignorance and stubbornness to accept mainstream theories, and not from an attempt to learn more about these theories by challenging them (and I am not saying people don’t create theories out of ignorance and stubbornness to accept mainstream theories, because they do). Most of what I have learned about relativity has been from challenging it and finding a list of reasons why my challenge was incorrect.”
One could argue this is the way to study science and especially physics.
However it would take ages while the time we have (in high school) is severely limited.
Often people also have the idea that since physics is called exact science the approximate models we have are useless.
Also the interplay theory-experiment in the scientific method is not a one-way street. It’s a complicated interplay of ideas and results. (A dance if you like metaphors)
I’d say keep on the good work and remain critical.
A substantial majority of
People believe what they want to believe.
They disregard information/misinformation that contradicts what they believe.
They absorb information/misinformation that reinforces what they believe.
What they believe is usually self-flattering.
They choose a person or organization in which to place their trust. They believe all information/misinformation that issues from this source.
Corollary:
Sources of flattering information are more likely to earn such trust.
To believe that you easily have come up with a simple insight that a thousands of hard-working geniuses have missed is very self-flattering.
To believe that you are ignorant and incompetent in some area is anti-self-flattering.
Ergo, crackpottery is a basic human tendency.
You can coerce a student into learning, but each student is free disbelieve in or subsequently forget what was learned. Once no longer a student, untrusted sources no longer have any power over their learning or beliefs.
—–
I think the educational system is obsolete, ineffective, inflicts pain on the student, and needs a complete overhaul. It has hardly changed since ancient times. Can you blame people for hating it? There is room for improvement.
“NOVA is an excellent source for informing the public about science, but I am guessing that for each viewer of NOVA there are more than a hundred viewers of FOX NEWS.”
And we all know how great Fox News is at explaining/acknowledging proven scientific fact.
“I do not find that to be at all in disagree w/ my statements or beliefs and in fact I think it’s a fine way to forge ahead in science for someone your age. It keeps you interested but as long as you stay grounded in the knowledge that your theories are based, at this level of your development, more in ignorance than in knowledge, then you are using your process as a learning tool and that’s great.”
Ok, I just picked up an implication (that may or may not have been there) in both your post and the insight that these theories all come from ignorance and stubbornness to accept mainstream theories, and not from an attempt to learn more about these theories by challenging them (and I am not saying people don’t create theories out of ignorance and stubbornness to accept mainstream theories, because they do). Most of what I have learned about relativity has been from challenging it and finding a list of reasons why my challenge was incorrect.
“So first of all, I find this insight to be very interesting. However, as a crackpot by some definitions, I must disagree with you and phinds on one point. I do study actual science and calculus with that science. I learned on this forum to stay away from popsci, but still, I come up with “theories”. No, as a middle schooler I do not believe these theories will go anywhere. What I do is I make a theory based on math and what I have learned so far from other sources, and then I look for what I did wrong.
”
I do not find that to be at all in disagree w/ my statements or beliefs and in fact I think it’s a fine way to forge ahead in science for someone your age. It keeps you interested but as long as you stay grounded in the knowledge that your theories are based, at this level of your development, more in ignorance than in knowledge, then you are using your process as a learning tool and that’s great.
“I don’t see what would be wrong with the quote”
On the actual insights page it turned out differently.
As we’ve seen in the thread: [URL]https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/quantum-mechanics-is-not-weird-unless-presented-as-such.850860/[/URL] most concepts can’t be genuinely described using word language. Susskind also mentioned this in an interview I watched where the interviewer asked some quantum mechanics question and Susskind basically said he couldn’t answer it with words, only in math. Not long ago I debated a man who claimed to understand the concepts of the Big Bang very well and didn’t need to know the math. I promptly left the conversation. Fact is that the general public certainty can’t handle or have the patience for reading research papers so pop sci news agencies water the research down into cookie cutter pieces with catchy headlines which in the end only vaguely resemble what it really means. This is good for the public’s imagination but doesn’t do justice for how complex their research is.
“but some people (like me) learn from thinking, challenging the theories and finding out why I’m wrong.”That is perfectly fine, as long as challenging the theories is based on actual knowledge of those theories.
I don’t see what would be wrong with the quote.
I think the biggest problem is that people find it SO much easier to watch pop science on TV than to do any actual study of science, and you know how those shows get so much wrong. I think they do sometimes inspire young people to study but overall I’m not sure but what they do more harm than good and they certainly give those adults who are not likely to further pursue actual science a very poor view of actual science of the kind you talk about. The producers of the TV shows can’t be blamed for this any more than McDonalds can be blamed for serving tasty junk food. People sell what other people buy and there are lots of buyers for junk food and junk science, especially since they LOOK so tasty, what with all the nifty graphics and tomato sauce and all.
The first thing we COULD do (and won’t) would be to insist that people who teach science, at any level but particularly below the college level, be required to have at least some idea what they are talking about. Teachers below the high school level in particular have no idea, generally, what science is really all about.
Reminds me of the book "String Theory For Dummies", which I read all in less than 1 hour.One of the main goal of this book is "to avoid mathematics at all cost" (p.2).To explain string theory to a non-specialist with an inquisitive mind is certainly a noble goal.But when 1+2=3 is too much math already, not much can be done.
I think the popularisation of science is horrible. It gives all the wrong signals and apparently the wrong ideas. Now, I didn't make it to become a scientist, but I am very well aware that what is conveyed to the public has virtually nothing to do with (the actual) science. I had one moment I thought I might have had an eureka-moment, and contacted a physisist. He suggested my idea was 'probably not that interesting'. I knew that already, but having an authority figure actually pointing that out to me set me back to work. I discovered that what I was actually trying was to understand the matter I was interested in. To be told that only scientists have a right to be occupied with the field of interest you are also interested in, can be disappointing. I also discovered one important motivation I was developing ideas of my own: I was utterly convinced that physics shouldn't be that complicated, the reason being that I thought that elegance and simplicity are the sign of a good theory.So now I've figured it out. I haven't got a theory, and certainly not a new one. I've put down a set of well known laws that are enough for me to be satisfied. It is that satisfaction that stopped me from searching further. After all, I am not a scientist.
As far as the question, can science popularisation improve in that aspect, and if yes, how?With regards to my initial post, no. Of course by some measure it can improve, but if we are looking for real change then we will need to change the environment.
Without a doubt, this is an important conversation. But, what can be expected in today's current society? Does anyone really think it will get better in this system? Without fixing the environment, this issue will continue and likely become worse.
I don't get why some people want to overturn SR. Special Relativity is one of the most intriguing things I have ever come across. It's where my love of physics began, and it led me directly down the path to GR, which is my favorite scientific subject period. What do people have against relativity?
Physics Forum is dedicated to advancing the standard model. This discussion doesn't seem to be part of that.As I see it, every part of the standard model was once part of fringe science at least to the extent of not being accepted/proven. While some fringe science is clearly wrong (or not even wrong), some tiny fraction of it will someday work its way into the standard model. A discussion like this opens up the question of what is right or wrong about fringe science. That's a problem for a website that tries to avoid fringe science. I do think anyone attacking the standard needs to have a good understanding of it before declaring it wrong. This forum helps to provide that understanding. Hopefully the work we do here will one day allow us to replace the standard model with one closer to the truth. (Not that the standard model is off by a lot, but there are still outstanding problems.)Historically liberal arts have always ruled science. That is because a good story has always received more funding than being right. (NSF budget: $7 billion (2012), Disney: $11 billion)
I agree with most of you assessment. Now how about offering solutions.
I think there will always be two camps, those who try to strictly adhere to the rules of science which relies mainly on the math which is enough to communicate. and the laypeople who know the world from their own perspectives, which are numerous, I'm certain. The perspective they have built in their mind to comprehend the reality they are familiar with typically fails and so they grapple for a mechanism to leave their sole understanding intact. Many don't have the neural plasticity to drop lifelong thought processes and start over, let alone the determinism to seek a deeper, more accurate understanding, and the mental ability to assemble intricate models. So pop-sci caters to their inadequacies with "fantastic" phrases like "wave-particle duality" and life goes on.
Non-Science is a societal problem. It forwards the interest of the idiot fringe and of FUD mongers.Idiot fringe:In the US, there are so-called 'anti-vaxxers'. They are people who are vehemently against vaccinating children. Therein lies the issue with junk science in general. These folks made decisions based on pulp news sources and magazines that impact not only their immediate family, but others in the community. Measles was essentially unreported by the US CDC for years, there were very, very few cases. Not anymore. Measles can result in death and lifelong medical problems. Example SSPE: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001419.htmThe same thing happens with a variety of issues that are subjected to *FUD attacks, in order to further the economic positions of very powerful companies.Example – The US tobacco lobby's very effective attacks against anti-tobacco legislation. The stupidity did not abate until Science made discoveries that were so very plain, smack-you-in-the-face, that even the pop-science idiots could not get them wrong. FUD stills lives on with the climate "debate" – as newspapers call it. It is not a debate. You cannot legislate scientific observations and results. *FUD – fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
I think Richard Feynman did a great job of accurately explaining concepts to lay people without loosing them in the math. That's a very difficult thing to do, but that does not mean that it can't be done, or that it should not be attempted. It should.A good recent example was "The Space Doctor's Big Idea"http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/the-space-doctors-big-idea-einstein-general-relativity
Unfortunately you are using theory in the layman's sense. What you are coming up with are at best hypotheses. It is good to think up new ideas but calling them theories without rigorous testing does an injustice to science.BoB
One can't expect science T.V shows to tell all the intricate details ,if that is the case the public will stop watching because everyone in the public aren't scientists and most of the things will start going over their head and will scare the public away from science ,the shows are only aimed to give a brief idea to the lay public (and to motivate them to pursue science) who are completely or a large extent, disconnected from modern science, i think the problem mentioned in this article can be overcome if the science documentaries are screened for errors by the actual scientists who work on the topic (either retired or active scientists) and they should make it clear to the public that they are simplifying very complicated science in order for them to understand and that real knowledge only comes with hard study.
Awesome Insight, mfb. I'm going to show it to one of my physics professors if you don't mind.
When I was a child, getting in to ham radio, I was amazed at what the retail for a radio was versus what the parts cost. What I didn't realize is that the radio had a lot of marketing and engineering expenses that needed to be recouped.This may sound crass, but we need MORE marketing. Science invokes a sense of wonder in its practitioners that is only rarely ever described well. Carl Sagan did that. We don't realize how good that was, until watching the remake of Cosmos. Even his masterful and charismatic protege Neil deGrasse Tyson is only a pale reflection of the kind of science marketing that Carl Sagan did. Don't get me wrong, Tyson is brilliant; but Sagan's presentation was the very embodiment of artistry. If you can't be as brilliant as Sagan, you can make up for it with quantity. That's where we need to go. Relying upon public enthusiasm will get you only so far. The biggest successes in business and history in general were accompanied by masterful marketing. We need more.
BTW, for some reason part of the quote is not in the quote part of my post.
So first of all, I find this insight to be very interesting. However, as a crackpot by some definitions, I must disagree with you and phinds on one point. I do study actual science and calculus with that science. I learned on this forum to stay away from popsci, but still, I come up with "theories". No, as a middle schooler I do not believe these theories will go anywhere. What I do is I make a theory based on math and what I have learned so far from other sources, and then I look for what I did wrong. Sometimes I need to ask a professional about what I did wrong. In fact, I learn better from actually thinking about it and then finding a problem in my thinking and/or math. I do agree that some people do need to learn real science before making a statement like "special relativity is wrong" but some people (like me) learn from thinking, challenging the theories and finding out why I'm wrong. Just something to think about. Overall, however, a great insight.
Hi mfb:This is a great topic to discuss. I hope that some useful ideas will emerge, but I confess I am very pessimistic. NOVA is an excellent source for informing the public about science, but I am guessing that for each viewer of NOVA there are more than a hundred viewers of FOX NEWS.Regards,Buzz