Is the General Public Misinformed about Science and Engineering?

[Evo]

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

No. Please read the link I provided.

Holder of the burden

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

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

 

[chiro]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Evo]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No. Please read the link I provided.

Holder of the burden

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

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

 

[dipole]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[zoobyshoe]

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

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

 

[OmCheeto]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[chiro]

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

No. Please read the link I provided.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[zoobyshoe]

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

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

 

[Evo]

But you are assuming a debate:

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

 

[OmCheeto]

hmmm...

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

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

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

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

almost...

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

 

[ZapperZ]

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

Are we all talk but effort?

Zz.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

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

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

 

[KiwiKid]

Are we all talk but effort?

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

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[dipole]

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

Are we all talk but effort?

Zz.

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

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

 

[KiwiKid]

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

I'm from the Netherlands, so that doesn't apply. ;) Which year is someone's last in high school depends on what kind of education they're getting. There's VWO (pre-university secondary education), which generally takes six years to complete, HAVO (higher general continued education), which takes five years, and VMBO (preparatory middle-level vocational education), which can be finished in four years. I'm talking about VWO - most people are about 18 or 19 years old when they finish their sixth year.

I should also point out that this wasn't some sort of class assignment. I simply realized - as I suppose more people who're interested in science from a young age do - that practically no one knew anything about how science actually *worked* (not that I know it all, of course, but I hope that I at least know a bit about the basic process). The fact that I went to a religious school may also have been a factor, but I don't think it mattered much (if people in non-religious high schools learn a lot of science, I will be very surprised indeed). Thus, I asked my physics teacher whether I would be allowed to give a small presentation about the scientific method. He agreed, I gave the presentation, and that's that. :)

 

[ZapperZ]

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

KiwiKid: that MORE than counts, and I think you should be commendable for doing such things considering that you just started college.

Zz.

 

[Pythagorean]

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

Are we all talk but effort?

Zz.

To be fair, your post wasn't the OP. perhaps you'd have better results starting a new thread.

 

[ZapperZ]

To be fair, your post wasn't the OP. perhaps you'd have better results starting a new thread.

Sure, but I see such "enthusiasm" in here among the participants. At some point, I'm curious to see for all those who made all these statements, how many actually DO something about the problem. This isn't the first time such a topic has been discussed. But there comes a time where simply talking about it won't cut it anymore. That's why I wanted to know how many people have done something about it, and how many people haven't, and why? So it is certainly tied to this thread and this very topic.

Zz/

 

[QuantumPion]

I think a general distrust of science comes from politicians misuse of science for political ends.

 

[turbo]

Children don't distrust science. They embrace it. You just have to make it interesting. My neighbors' granddaughters love natural sciences, and we live out in the woods, so I teach them things that they can't learn in school. What's that bird? What's that bug?

The songs of grosbeaks and finches and the manic calls of pileated woodpeckers are all chances for lessons.

 

[Pythagorean]

Sure, but I see such "enthusiasm" in here among the participants. At some point, I'm curious to see for all those who made all these statements, how many actually DO something about the problem[...]
Zz/

That's sensible. Though I can understand why some may not feel it's their burden to relieve others of ignorance.

I personally feel that it's important for us to reach out to children (like, toddler-age) and teach them to at least have a good methodology and good observation skills, even if we don't dress it up in a package and label it 'science'. We should make them comfortable with the practices and techniques of science so that science is not so foreign to them later on.

I don't think there's much hope for adults except in rare cases where the adult is genuinely interested. And of course, every one in between is busy with angst, which requires a whole different approach that I'm not familiar with. Maybe we should ask the producers of Twilight.

 

[ZapperZ]

That's sensible. Though I can understand why some may not feel it's their burden to relieve others of ignorance.

But if one feels that way, then one shouldn't complain that the public isn't scientifically literate. Things just don't happen or change on their own.

I personally feel that it's important for us to reach out to children (like, toddler-age) and teach them to at least have a good methodology and good observation skills, even if we don't dress it up in a package and label it 'science'. We should make them comfortable with the practices and techniques of science so that science is not so foreign to them later on.

I don't think there's much hope for adults except in rare cases where the adult is genuinely interested. And of course, every one in between is busy with angst, which requires a whole different approach that I'm not familiar with. Maybe we should ask the producers of Twilight.

There is no one single approach here. It has to be on all fronts. While we can't educate everyone, at the very least, those who are interested, or open to it, should have access.

Zz.

 

[Pythagorean]

While we can't educate everyone, at the very least, those who are interested, or open to it, should have access.

I agree, and I have signed petitions to that effect in an attempt to force publishers to respect open access. We also have wonderful platforms like scholarpedia and wikipedia that we can personally contribute to.

 

[ZapperZ]

I agree, and I have signed petitions to that effect in an attempt to force publishers to respect open access. We also have wonderful platforms like scholarpedia and wikipedia that we can personally contribute to.

Well, I'm not one of those people who think that everyone is entitled to have everything for free. In some sense, you get what you pay for in terms of quality, and I've never been a fan of wikipedia.

Furthermore, giving the public access to PRL, for example, does nothing to educate them about physics.

Zz.

 

[Pythagorean]

Well, I'm not one of those people who think that everyone is entitled to have everything for free. In some sense, you get what you pay for in terms of quality, and I've never been a fan of wikipedia.


Zz.

It's not "free", the research was paid for by tax dollars... which the public pays. You have control over the state of what wikipedia has to say about physics. You can get involved with the other PhD's that help regulate. Even if you don't like wikipedia, it's what people go to. If you don't like it, get involved in the wikipedia community:

"But if one feels that way, then one shouldn't complain that the public isn't scientifically literate. Things just don't happen or change on their own."

Furthermore, giving the public access to PRL, for example, does nothing to educate them about physics.

Well, you've moved the goal post. Remember what you said:

"While we can't educate everyone, at the very least, those who are interested, or open to it, should have access."

So the point of opening access is so that it's there, for people who have one foot in the public and one foot in understanding PRL to mediate the information transfer.

 

[ZapperZ]

It's not "free", the research was paid for by tax dollars... which the public pays. You have control over the state of what wikipedia has to say about physics. You can get involved with the other PhD's that help regulate. Even if you don't like wikipedia, it's what people go to. If you don't like it, get involved in the wikipedia community:

"But if one feels that way, then one shouldn't complain that the public isn't scientifically literate. Things just don't happen or change on their own."

But you're making an explicit assumption that EVERY paper that appears were funded by the public tax dollars. This is false.

Furthermore, do you also expect free medications? After all, a lot of pharmaceutical research were also either funded by tax dollars, or used tax-funded facilities to accomplished their results.

I really do not want to get into this debate, because it is not relevant to the topic on hand.

Well, you've moved the goal post. Remember what you said:

"While we can't educate everyone, at the very least, those who are interested, or open to it, should have access."

So the point of opening access is so that it's there, for people who have one foot in the public and one foot in understanding PRL to mediate the information transfer.

I did not move the goal post. I just didn't explain it clearly enough, and you took it into another direction. "Access" means being able to meet and talk to scientists, and being able to find general-public information, NOT necessarily scientific journals.

Zz.

 

[Pythagorean]

But you're making an explicit assumption that EVERY paper that appears were funded by the public tax dollars. This is false.

Nope! The open access movement only applies to federally funded research. The petitions explicitly say that!

Furthermore, do you also expect free medications? After all, a lot of pharmaceutical research were also either funded by tax dollars, or used tax-funded facilities to accomplished their results.

The research should be open access, yes, that's relevant. The meds themselves take labor, logistics, and materials to produce, which must be accounted for. Either by taxes (which would be fine with me) or out of pocket. Generally, somebody with a relevant disease already gets the medications free through government plans.

I did not move the goal post. I just didn't explain it clearly enough, and you took it into another direction. "Access" means being able to meet and talk to scientists, and being able to find general-public information, NOT necessarily scientific journals.

What I meant is that you switched back to the full charge of "educating the public" after you had explicitly dismissed it:

While we can't educate everyone, at the very least, those who are interested, or open to it, should have access.

[...]

giving the public access to PRL, for example, does nothing to educate them about physics.

seems like cognitive dissonance to me...

 

[ZapperZ]

Nope! The open access movement only applies to federally funded research. The petitions explicitly say that!



The research should be open access, yes, that's relevant. The meds themselves take labor, logistics, and materials to produce, which must be accounted for. Either by taxes (which would be fine with me) or out of pocket. Generally, somebody with a relevant disease already gets the medications free through government plans.



What I meant is that you switched back to the full charge of "educating the public" after you had explicitly dismissed it:



seems like cognitive dissonance to me...

So you want to derail this thread into proviiding the public material with QUESTIONABLE public benefit, just because of ONE statement that I made that you misinterpret? no wonder public education goes nowhere. We seem to ENJOY bickering about semantics rather than doing something that's actually productive!

Zz.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070221093213.htm

According to that article, students learn science better when they conduct experiments using their own intuitive thinking, as opposed to just being given a standard set of procedures and following directions explicitly. Not only that, but when compared, students who conducted experiments and gathered materials on their own (instead of being given the prepared enzyme, this group gathered it themselves from an onion) knew their topic far better than those who just followed instructions to the T.

What I mainly liked from this article was that Steve Rissing, the old Director of the Biology Department at Ohio University, is fully aware that scientific literacy is completely lacking in K-12 education. What he notices though, is that it's the teachers fault, and it is traceable to the fact that these teachers aren't being taught well enough in college.

“The college professors and scientists are ultimately the ones that foster public understanding and opinions of science.”

Now, this article is from 2007, but it is still relevant. If the high school teachers are the problem, then we need to trace it back to the source of where they are getting educated; college.

 

[Evo]

If the high school teachers are the problem, then we need to trace it back to the source of where they are getting educated; college.

Perhaps this is something that could be addressed at the local public school system level. A program to educate and excite science teachers. Local school support of the sciences. Get feedback on the effectiveness of their courses.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

Perhaps this is something that could be addressed at the local public school system level. A program to educate and excite science teachers. Local school support of the sciences. Get feedback on the effectiveness of their courses.

I'm a part of the Lead Team at my school's RSVP program (a relatively new thing, it's only in a few schools around the country... the acronym stands for Raising Student Voices and Participation, and it's essentially a way for students to let the administration know about anything that they want changed).

I'm wondering if I would be able to try and get the students behind this, and see if we could get enough votes to actually change something. I'm useless during the summer, because we only meet during the school-year, but I'm thinking that getting the program going for elementary and middle school science classes would be more effective, because my high school is blessed with some great science teachers who I feel don't need to be motivated any more than they already are.

 

[turbo]

I'm thinking that getting the program going for elementary and middle school science classes would be more effective, because my high school is blessed with some great science teachers who I feel don't need to be motivated any more than they already are.

You're very fortunate. All the "science teachers" in my elementary years were old-lady generalists who taught out of out-dated books, and my HS science teacher was hopelessy out of his league. He was supposed to teach a couple of levels of general science, biology, and physics. I got great SAT scores (probably due to so much self-study) but when I got to Uni, I had to play a lot of catch-up. I can't blame him, because my graduating class had only 42 students (the largest in the history of that regional HS), and nobody can know all sciences and teach them properly, but still, we are not doing all we can for our kids.

 

[collinsmark]

So, just out of curiosity, how many of you here have been involved in trying to communicate science to the public? Your participation here on PF does not count.

In a very informal way, I try to get/keep people involved with various astronomical events, if the circumstances permit that all they have to do is tilt their head up and look (or walk a few feet outside the doorway, if the event is less common). Some examples are simply pointing out planets if we happen to be outside already, or better is stuff like the recent solar eclipse and Venus transit, both which were visible from my location. I also try to point out the International Space Station (ISS) sightings when they are visible in my area. None of this is organized, it's just something I can do in my own way to inspire awareness of the things around us, to anybody that is open to it and happens to be around.

I try to keep abreast of the events and prepare as necessary, like bringing solar safe glasses, a home made solar projection device, and/or a green laser pointer (etc.)

The people can range from coworkers/colleagues, friends, acquaintances, and even complete strangers. I've even gotten some of the neighborhood homeless guys interested in the eclipse, Venus transit and an ISS sighting or two.

The location is wherever I happen to be at the time: work, pub, coffee shop, social gathering, etc. It only takes a couple of seconds to walk outside and look up. I inform people of what they can see if they choose to, but I don't pressure them if they are not open to the idea. I let them know what's happening up there, and if they want to come have a look, the rest is up to them.

I'll usually have a few facts about whatever it is that's going on. For example, I might speak about history of similar, past events, or quote the speed of the ISS, etc. I try to keep it basic though, and I won't go into detail unless somebody asks.

If you have, did you learn anything from your effort? Did you think your efforts were productive?

The recent solar eclipse and the Venus transit were very productive. I sparked a lot of interest in people who otherwise would never have even given the events any consideration at all. The feedback given to me was very positive. Sometimes, I find those same people still talking about the event(s). They probably would never even have thought about it otherwise.

The ISS sightings can be a different story. The vast majority of the reception ISS sightings are positive. The greater bulk of the people I gather for ISS sightings thank me in the end for letting them know, and are always asking me when the next one is when they run into me. But that's not everybody. Reactions also range to complete indifference, and even to contempt and malice. Sometimes, I just don't understand these latter people's reaction to the ISS. A group of us might be outside, all looking at it "fly" over, and somebody walks by. I'll mention to the person, "If you're interested, that's the International Space Station flying above us right now." And I'll point up to it. Sometimes, albeit only a small fraction of the time (fortunately), the look I get is one that I just ran over their cat and ate the cats' kittens. Others refuse to look up because they disbelieve that there is such a thing as the International Space Station and don't want to change that beleif (and thus refuse to look up, presumably in fear that it might compromise their blinkered world view) [Edit: and even then I'm always polite. If they're not interested, then so be it. It just doesn't do any good otherwise]. I'm tempted to go on about some of these reactions in more detail, but I won't here. I might save it for a new thread though.

What lessons can you convey to the group here?

Basically, not everyone will be interested in science regardless of how interested you are. If somebody doesn't want to participate, or doesn't want to learn, sometimes there's just nothing positive that can come out of pressuring them to do so. You can show them the path, but not everybody will choose to go down it.

[Edit: But still give it a try! It turns out that most people are interested! But just don't push it too much. Don't be discouraged if you can't get through to all people.]

 

[Pythagorean]

So you want to derail this thread into proviiding the public material with QUESTIONABLE public benefit, just because of ONE statement that I made that you misinterpret? no wonder public education goes nowhere. We seem to ENJOY bickering about semantics rather than doing something that's actually productive!

Zz.

That's quite a loaded post. Trying to guess at motives isn't really productive. I do not want to derail the thread, but it was important to clarify your misrepresentation of the open access movement, which is an important part of the relationship between the public and science.

Librarians are one of the people at the forefront of the interface between the public and science and they are also big supporters of open access; they are the motivators for the movement at my university because they know that scientific literature is in demand. Next to wkipedia, libraries are among the first places people go to learn new information about a scientific subject.

..and regardless of the scientific community's feelings towards it, wikipedia will continue to be first contact for the public with many scientific subjects, so it's an important place to participate in, especially if you're critical of the quality of the content and you have the expertise to enhance it.

Other than that, local outreach programs are neat and fun, but they're not there, waiting for the moment when the public is inspired; for when a member of the public needs information about a particular subject: for that, wikipedia and the library (including specialist/research libraries on campus) are the main source of information.

These are the two organizations that you can empower to help educate the public in a significant and meaningful way.

Children's museums are another important institution that has a strong STEM component and is geared towards developmental paradigms in learning through play.