Is the General Public Misinformed about Science and Engineering?

[cobalt124]

3) Teaching of Science....no one is taught science in school. From a young age science classes in school are filled with endless facts, many of which are dry and boring to the majority of people (including future scientists). It is extremely rare to find someone who has had a lesson on the scientific method itself outside of university (or increasingly these days 6th form in the UK). Consequently for the majority of people all they know of science is that when they were in school they regularly sat through mostly boring lessons where facts were presented to them. I can't think of a single experiment that I ever did at school before 6th form...

This really depresses me. I've mentioned this in a previous thread. In the early 80's I took "O" level Physics and Chemistry. Every week for two years in both subjects we had experimental demonstations from teachers and we did our own experiments in groups and wrote up our method, results and conclusions afterwards. In Physics I did at least two projects that I remember, one on noise pollution and one one carbon dating. I went away, researched it myself, wrote it up, and gave an assessment of the subject. It seems children today are being let down in this respect.

 

[dlgoff]

The unfortunate answer is that they don't think about it.

Do you think they wonder how a frying pan is made? Or the flooring they walk on? Or the bed they sleep in?

No.

I think I've just found my new signature. Seriously.

 

[Evo]

I think I've just found my new signature. Seriously.

Lol.

 

[EulersFormula]

Although I'm in engineering, I have to say that I'm ignorant about a lot of things as well, even within science. I know nothing about biology and I'm fairly ignorant on world history, literature, religion, and other subjects relating to the social sciences. Most careers, just like science and engineering, take years of skill and hard work.

 

[pinkfishegg]

I find a lot of people in the United States think they're not smart enough for science. I'm going into my 3rd year of undergraduate physics and when I tell people around me I'm a physics major they treat me like I'm a genius. I usually tell them something like " Well I wasn't great at math in high school, and it takes me a lot of time and effort to do physics. I do it because I find it fascinating, not because it's easy and I want to make a lot of money. If you put a lot of time and love and energy into science, I think you could get it too."

People never really believe me though, and just reply that they're not really math or science people. Does anyone else get this response? I feel that high schools segregate people into scientists and non-scientists way too early and the only people who really get ahead (with honors sciences classes and so on) are the people whose parents tell them to become doctors and engineers. I know this is a generalization but I wish science was encouraged more as something more people can do. I think a lot of people see it as something smart people do when they want to make a lot of money.

 

[Evo]

I think a lot of people see it as something smart people do when they want to make a lot of money.

Unfortunately, people that go into the sciences are, for the most part, terribly underpaid. Scientists do it for the love of science, not to make money.

 

[lisab]

I find a lot of people in the United States think they're not smart enough for science. I'm going into my 3rd year of undergraduate physics and when I tell people around me I'm a physics major they treat me like I'm a genius. I usually tell them something like " Well I wasn't great at math in high school, and it takes me a lot of time and effort to do physics. I do it because I find it fascinating, not because it's easy and I want to make a lot of money. If you put a lot of time and love and energy into science, I think you could get it too."

People never really believe me though, and just reply that they're not really math or science people. Does anyone else get this response? I feel that high schools segregate people into scientists and non-scientists way too early and the only people who really get ahead (with honors sciences classes and so on) are the people whose parents tell them to become doctors and engineers. I know this is a generalization but I wish science was encouraged more as something more people can do. I think a lot of people see it as something smart people do when they want to make a lot of money.

Oh sure, I get that kind of response very often. I hesitate to even tell people anymore that I majored in physics, it just stops any conversation...sigh. Probably doesn't help that I'm female, too.

Yeah our high school system...what a disaster. In places it's excellent (check out what Chi Meson does with his students!). In other places it's hopeless .

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

In my school of nearly 1100 people, an astounding 10 people took AP Physics this last year.

Ten. Out of over 1000.

 

[Borg]

Oh sure, I get that kind of response very often. I hesitate to even tell people anymore that I majored in physics, it just stops any conversation...sigh.

But, it's so much fun to watch the reaction when someone is spewing ridiculous statements about science.

 

[GregJ]

Reading through this whole thread just makes me think of a movie I saw, called Idiocracy.

But yeah, I nearly always get the "oooo... gosh!" when I say that I am studying physics, and I never know how to reply to that :shy:

 

[CDTOE]

Lately, I've been thinking that the increasing control/contribution of big corporations over education has contributed to the decline of public knowledge and interest in science. In my area, major corporations are mostly in oil/chemical/iron business, and they're considered to be the top corporations in terms of salary, health insurance and job security. Most electrical engineering students in the university that I study in, even the hard-working individuals, are eagerly looking to the moment they graduate with a BS degree, so they can get a fancy job in one of those oil corporations where most of them don't even do a real electrical engineering work.

The attitude of those students is apparent. They study to get a job and would rather not to expand their knowledge outside what they've been taught in class. Actually, they would be happy to have a teacher that removes some subjects of a given course so that they can prepare less for exams and to get to their most ambitious goal, A+. There are exceptions, but very, very few and I hope to be one of them.

 

[BobG]

People never really believe me though, and just reply that they're not really math or science people. Does anyone else get this response?

Once, at a party, from a proctologist. And then he started telling me about his job and I got bored and left.

 

[Danger]

On my graduation day from locksmithing school, the teacher told us that we were now about to start learning. Boy, was he right! I suspect that the same might be said about any technological field including the experimental side of more advanced subjects like physics. The best teachers teach you how to learn.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I thought of roundhouse kicking her in the face, but then realized I'd be helping lawyers make more money than they already deserve.

Perhaps some people don't ask questions and so don't learn because they don't want to get round house kicked in the face?

Seriously... I've met very few people who do not think that science and technology are interesting and things that they would like to learn about. I have, however, met several people who are knowledgeable who seem to take delight in treating people less knowledgeable than them like half-wits. And I can't say I have ever met anyone who responds well to being treated like a numbskull. Sadly all of my science teachers in high school looked down on, and talked down to, any student who didn't come prepackaged with a will and desire to learn about science. And those that did, but did not do so well in class, typically got more of the stick than the carrot as well.

Basically my point is: What do you expect from people that you talk about like they're a waste of space?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Basically my point is: What do you expect from people that you talk about like they're a waste of space?

Totally agreed and I think this applies to all fields. We should all learn/be taught the basics of as many fields as possible because they are important to how we function as a society, so even if someone doesn't find the scientific method interesting it would be beneficial for them to know what it is. Too often though people confuse understanding the fundamentals to learning the entire field, generally the field being whatever the speaker is in.

I find this most common with IT types, they seem to forget that most people don't want to know the intracasies of their computer any more than they do their rail network. They just want it to work and to be easy and fun to use. This is why Apple did so well with the iphone and ipad IMO, they realized that people just want an easy and artsy interface to a tool that to them doesn't need to be more than a black box.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

You remind me of "The IT Crowd". Its the way scientists and experts are generally perceived (over here any way); that they are arrogant, bitter that more people don't recognize their genius, and generally unable to communicate with "normal" people.

I get the impression that pseudo science and pop science are so popular because of the attempt to give "common sense" explanations that anyone can "understand". I'm sure it's rather appealing to believe that this great mystery of science coveted by "smart people" can be so easily accessible. The snake oil salesman is ever willing to smile and treat his customers with "respect".

I was rather happy to hear that Seth MacFarlane is rebooting Cosmos with Neil deGrasse Tyson (mentioned earlier). Maybe we'll have decent science on TV again.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

You remind me of "The IT Crowd". Its the way scientists and experts are generally perceived (over here any way); that they are arrogant, bitter that more people don't recognize their genius, and generally unable to communicate with "normal" people.

I get the impression that pseudo science and pop science are so popular because of the attempt to give "common sense" explanations that anyone can "understand". I'm sure it's rather appealing to believe that this great mystery of science coveted by "smart people" can be so easily accessible. The snake oil salesman is ever willing to smile and treat his customers with "respect".

I was rather happy to hear that Seth MacFarlane is rebooting Cosmos with Neil deGrasse Tyson (mentioned earlier). Maybe we'll have decent science on TV again.

Agreed, pseudoscience does public communication far better than real science. That needs to change!

 

[NewtonianAlch]

Perhaps some people don't ask questions and so don't learn because they don't want to get round house kicked in the face?

Seriously... I've met very few people who do not think that science and technology are interesting and things that they would like to learn about. I have, however, met several people who are knowledgeable who seem to take delight in treating people less knowledgeable than them like half-wits. And I can't say I have ever met anyone who responds well to being treated like a numbskull. Sadly all of my science teachers in high school looked down on, and talked down to, any student who didn't come prepackaged with a will and desire to learn about science. And those that did, but did not do so well in class, typically got more of the stick than the carrot as well.

Basically my point is: What do you expect from people that you talk about like they're a waste of space?

What you're alluding to is very general; I am not claiming people need to know specifics of fields. As for the situation with your teachers in school is largely irrelevant as it's not necessarily the case in every school, or even a large amount of schools.

My point however convoluted it may have come across was that, there are some very basic ideas or points that people seem to lack. I don't take delight in treating people as half-wits nor do I try to act "knowledgeable". Please don't make it seem like we must all hold hands and try to "understand" ignorance.

There are plenty of things we are not experts or considered knowledgeable in but have a basic grasp of. What I was describing were situations that is extremely commonplace and is far beyond a level of even having a basic grasp of.

To think that science is fake, or to not know what "engineering" is largely idiotic.

 

[NewtonianAlch]

Agreed, pseudoscience does public communication far better than real science. That needs to change!

That's probably because it's more "fun", "easier to understand" or "interesting"

I honestly don't see it changing unless there's some kind of entertainment value to it, which has been tried over and over again.

Pseudosciences are part of trends, science is not a part of that. If you don't have a trend, you aren't going to make it popular in the same sense.

 

[ZapperZ]

But see, communicating to the public requires a completely different track than the communication that are done in science. So simply saying that scientists needs to communicate to the public just won't cut it.

Scientists communicate with each other via facts. These are BORING. I've attended some of the most boring seminars given by some of the most prominent physicists. An insomniac would be cured in one of these seminars. Yet, people clamor to be in the audience, not due to how it was delivered, but WHAT was delivered.

This isn't true with the public. Pat Dahmer of DOE once said that to communicate to the politicians in Capitol Hill, she has to be "perky, shallow, and superficial", because she can't simply give them facts, they won't understand and won't be interested! And that is how one has to communicate with the public, via presenting a lot of bells and whistles, something that scientists, by nature, are not concerned with in their profession! This is also why the pseudosciences and other snake-oil venders are quite successful - they are good at distracting the public from the validity of their claim, and dress up their wares with catchy and attractive messages. Scientists, on the other hand, think that the facts alone should be sufficient.

Zz.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I don't take delight in treating people as half-wits nor do I try to act "knowledgeable". Please don't make it seem like we must all hold hands and try to "understand" ignorance...To think that science is fake, or to not know what "engineering" is largely idiotic.

I think you're confusing ignorance with arrogance or willful ignorance. This is an important distinction; if someone doesn't know what they don't know or knows what they don't know and acknowledges it then they aren't idiots nor should they be treated with contempt. They should be offered the chance to learn and at the same time we should be looking at why they are in this situation and if it is indicitive of something that needs to be changed in society.

However if someone refuses to learn a subject after their ignorance has been pointed out but strongly opines on it still then we have a problem.

I realize this is a bit convoluted so here's some examples;

1) Someone doesn't know what they don't know: Alice didn't realize that evolutionary biology was a field of science

2) Someone knows what they don't know: Alice had heard of evolutionary biology as a science but didn't know anything about it

3) Willful ignorance: Alice had heard of evolutionary biology as a science and didn't know anything about it but she still believed it was wrong

Point 1 and 2 are largely neutral in that it doesn't necessarily say anything negative about the person but potentially outlines a problem in their education. Point 3 highlights a situation where Alice's behaviour could be said to be negative (AKA idiotic) because whilst she is aware of her ignorance she still insists she is correct. Unfortunately people often lump people with 1 and 2 in with those that are 3 which isn't fair IMO and is quite discouraging.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

But see, communicating to the public requires a completely different track than the communication that are done in science.

Absolutely agree with this and everything else you have said. The scientific community needs to concern itself with adopting and developing better ways of communicating science to the public. IMO public communication should be a module or two (or three...) in every science course because it is that vital. Increasingly so in this day and age.

In combination the public should be taught science from a young age in a fundamentally better way. Rather than learning facts they should learn what science is and what makes it different.

 

[ZapperZ]

Absolutely agree with this and everything else you have said. The scientific community needs to concern itself with adopting and developing better ways of communicating science to the public. IMO public communication should be a module or two (or three...) in every science course because it is that vital. Increasingly so in this day and age.

In combination the public should be taught science from a young age in a fundamentally better way. Rather than learning facts they should learn what science is and what makes it different.

Unfortunately, using the same tactics of communication that have been done by others is a double-edged sword. Communicating to the public that will capture their imagination and interest requires that one be "out there", and often has to make outlandish claims.

Just look at the recent examples where something out of physics captured the public imagination and interest - LHC causing black holes, and neutrinos moving faster than c. Both of these do not occur, but the possibility that they could is what caught the public's (and the media's) interest, NOT the physics. So you end up with some outlandish claims and reports, not on what happened, but on speculation on what might or could happen. In other word, one makes up some news on all the possibilities if such-and-such is true.

I don't think a lot of scientists can stomach such a thing. I certainly can't. We risk looking wishy-washy and uncertain, just like the diet industry. We can certainly try to explain things in simple terms, but not any simpler, as Einstein would insist. At the end of the day, it has to be a 2-way street where both scientists and the general public has to meet half-way. We can try to explain things in simpler and more interesting fashion, but the public must also make an effort to learn, at least basic concepts, to be able to comprehend what they are being presented. Learning takes effort, and there's simply no way around that.

Zz.

 

[NewtonianAlch]

I think you're confusing ignorance with arrogance or willful ignorance. This is an important distinction; if someone doesn't know what they don't know or knows what they don't know and acknowledges it then they aren't idiots nor should they be treated with contempt. They should be offered the chance to learn and at the same time we should be looking at why they are in this situation and if it is indicitive of something that needs to be changed in society.

However if someone refuses to learn a subject after their ignorance has been pointed out but strongly opines on it still then we have a problem.

I realize this is a bit convoluted so here's some examples;

1) Someone doesn't know what they don't know: Alice didn't realize that evolutionary biology was a field of science

2) Someone knows what they don't know: Alice had heard of evolutionary biology as a science but didn't know anything about it

3) Willful ignorance: Alice had heard of evolutionary biology as a science and didn't know anything about it but she still believed it was wrong

Point 1 and 2 are largely neutral in that it doesn't necessarily say anything negative about the person but potentially outlines a problem in their education. Point 3 highlights a situation where Alice's behaviour could be said to be negative (AKA idiotic) because whilst she is aware of her ignorance she still insists she is correct. Unfortunately people often lump people with 1 and 2 in with those that are 3 which isn't fair IMO and is quite discouraging.

What is often nicely laid out in theory isn't always the case in practice. Clearly, there's not going to be or much point in a massive re-education program for adults. Especially not in this kind of economic scenario we're going through at present. So whilst I completely agree with what you've said here, it is after all just wishful thinking, or to put it better, it's what one could or would do in a perfect world.

Quite often, the world is unfair and in practice this is the case nearly all of the time. When I say that I refer to another example where ignorance is not an excuse, and that's with the law. I don't recall ever having to sit through legal lessons or being quizzed on what's right or wrong in society, these things are learned through experience, observation and basic reasoning skills which are no different to the sciences and what's around them. You may live in a country where there are no speeding rules, and you come and do it another country, it's going to be awfully hard to convince the judge that driving obnoxiously and dangerously was not self-evident or you weren't educated enough to reason out the obvious consequences.

So I don't think anyone can play this "I don't know and I never learned it card" - as an example, that an electronic device is made through the application of maths and science is not something that has to be taught. No more than you need to be taught that you get your prescribed medication by a qualified doctor and not the receptionist at the local mall. They are learned through observation from your parents, the news, your friends, just living life, whatever the case may be.

Edit: Although I do admit and concede no one should be treated with contempt, that for the most part was a rant and a spur of the moment thing. Anyhow, I didn't blast them or round-house kick anyone, hopefully people should realize here that part was a bit of a joke.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

Having science enthusiasts with winning personalities helps. People will be more likely to learn about and better understand science if they are interested in it.

In regards to whether or not scientists, or at least the scientifically literate, have a right to get upset about ignorance of science, I personally believe they do, due to the unquestionable importance of science and technology in the advancements of our knowledge and societal progress.

By the way, ZapperZ, have you ever forgotten to include your Zz at the end of a post? One would assume that, in over 20,000 posts, the thought would have slipped your mind at least once.

 

[nitsuj]

There was a farmer who knew the length and breadth of his farm. He bought just enough seed to cover the ground and when he planted it, it just covered with no excess. Based on this, he told his friend from the city that the Earth was flat. His friend shook his head and rolled his eyes. "No", he said, "the Earth is round." "How do you know that?" asked the farmer. "I read it in a book." was the reply.

That's well said Jimmy.

And I too think this is the reason for "lack of interest" in the sciences.

What does it actually (physically) matter if you know something...all one needs to know is "how to".

How to use the phone, determine the season or drink some water ect.

That being said, I love knowing more...I find it satisfying.

 

[BobG]

The question I pose is, how stupid is the general public when it comes to the sciences? One would think a 25-year-old person (from Australia) would have at least done up to year 10 science and being in a developed country would have a grasp of what's happening around them.

I find it ironic that no one has yet linked to a scientific paper that answers your question.

At least part of the problem might be British science journalism.

Exhibit #1: The secret of making a scary movie has been calculated by university experts. (BBC article). The first problem I have with this formula is that "how true the movie is" is added to "how much fantasy the movie is" and then the two are averaged. Is this somehow related to conserveration of energy, except in the film domain? And if so, wouldn't averaging the two wind up being a constant?

The second problem I have is that the "university experts" consist of Anna Sigler, a recent graduate of King's College London, watching 10 horror movies while consuming a frightening amount of vodka. The result is a formula that is nearly as meaningful as the NFL's passer rating. If the formula ranks your favorites in the proper order, it must be scientifically sound, right?

As an aside, the designer of the NFL passer rating was almost certainly of British descent. At least as certain as Elizabeth Warren being of Native American descent. (You would think someone would just look in her family Bible since no one would lie about their geneology in a family Bible - which is why there are so few Muslims of Native American descent. And how is it that a person is Hispanic if one of their ancestors spoke Spanish without the aid of Spanish lessons unless they spoke Spanish because they ran a Chinese restaraunt in Madrid, in which case they're Asian? Given how muddled the picture is for ethnic groups/religious groups/language groups, I'm absolutely certain the person that designed the NFL passer rating was British because you claim a person belongs to a certain nationality, religion, ethnic group, language group and be absolutely assured there's some way to justify putting them in that group.)

Exhibit #2: Murphy at the Bat, New Yorker, 20 Oct 2004.

After the first two games of the American League Championship Series the magazine's Talk of the Town columnist speculates on whether Murphy's Law (basically stated as anything that can go wrong will) will apply to the Boston Red Sox in their playoff against the New York Yankees. The author cites a British study that concluded that the Murphy's Law corollary, "that bad things happen at the most inopportune times" is statistically significant. McGrath introduces a mathematical formula: "Let U, C, I, S and F be integers between 1 and 9, reflecting, respectively, comparative levels of Urgency, Complexity, Importance, Skill, and Frequency in a given set of circumstances. Let A, which stands for Aggravation, equal 7.0. (Don't ask.)... Let's give the Sox an 8 for Skill, and 9 for both Urgency and Importance. Complexity... a 5... Frequency ...9. So now we've got: [((9 + 5 + 9) x (10 - 8)) / 20] x 0.7 x 1 / (1 - sin (9 / 10)). The final Murphy's score, in other words, is 7.4." The author concludes, "No wonder Johnny Damon, the Red Sox' ordinarily dependable lead-off batter, lost his swing just as Curt Schilling, the team's most durable pitcher, went down with a bum ankle."

Many baseball fans will realize that this scientific study was dramatically and irrefutably refuted within a mere week of this article being published as the Red Sox became the only team in major league history to come back from a 3-0 deficit to win a 7 game series!

Why is British science journalism so bad? Finally, scientific proof of how bad it is and why it's so bad.

British journalists also tend to see themselves as tradesmen rather than professionals. They learn on the job. They're more interested in storytelling and entertainment than they are in balance and standards. As a result, some of them don't give a crap.

They should learn a few things from American reporters that have a fail safe method of determining whether the person they're interviewing always tells the truth, always lies, or sometimes lies and sometimes tells the truth. They simply ask the person they're interviewing, "If I ask the expert in front of door A whether the expert in front of door B will claim you're lying when you claimed the expert in front of door A never tells the truth, how will he answer?" If he really has a scientific mind, he'll be able to answer that question truthfully (but might not if he's a liar with scientific mind), while a person with an unscientific mind that always lies won't be able to figure out what answer would be a lie, while a person with an unscientific mind that always tells the truth won't be able to figure out what answer would be the truth.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

What you're alluding to is very general; I am not claiming people need to know specifics of fields. As for the situation with your teachers in school is largely irrelevant as it's not necessarily the case in every school, or even a large amount of schools.

My point however convoluted it may have come across was that, there are some very basic ideas or points that people seem to lack. I don't take delight in treating people as half-wits nor do I try to act "knowledgeable". Please don't make it seem like we must all hold hands and try to "understand" ignorance.

There are plenty of things we are not experts or considered knowledgeable in but have a basic grasp of. What I was describing were situations that is extremely commonplace and is far beyond a level of even having a basic grasp of.

To think that science is fake, or to not know what "engineering" is largely idiotic.

I am well aware that I was using anecdotal evidence and it may not pan out cross region and cross culture and may even be flat out wrong. But... I don't see this trend other people apparently have observed that some significant portion of the population allegedly doesn't care about, or have any interest in, science. I am quite certain that you likely never had any intention of practicing your martial arts on some poor ignorant female but it strikes me as a very common attitude among more intelligent people to look down on, and speak disdainfully of, the ignorant. And it seems rather counter productive if the typical possessor of knowledge is disdainful of the typical person who lacks said knowledge. Unless of course you actually like to look down on people and consider yourself superior, which is rather probable in many cases I would guess.

I am pointing out what appears to be a very likely phenomenon to me. That "intelligent people" tend to look down on "unintelligent people" and this causes enmity between both sides regardless of anyones particular intent to be hostile towards the other. We wind up with a portion of society that distrusts the other because they perceive them as arrogant jerks and another that distrust the former because they seem willfully stupid and illogically hostile. You don't get progress with that sort of situation. You don't have to hold anyone's hand but if you don't like ignorant people being ignorant simply not liking them, and fantasizing about doing violence upon them, is not likely to fix anything and possibly only makes it worse.

 

[Kholdstare]

I think it is difficult for general public to think like a scientist. Because scientific process takes too much effort in thinking process, careful analysis, availability of resource and data etc. to fit in the daily schedule of a person of other profession.

And even if they do have time to think scientifically, that mental task is not always as much entertaining as having other thoughts. I agree scientific thinking can also produce wonderful and entertaining thoughts. But to get same amount of entertainment from science one has to do a lot more mental task than regular entertainment.

Its even very difficult without other person/group's supports, mathematical training and library.

I think the prevailing human nature is basically to be happy and lazy. They would be happy to have a correct but "superficial explanation" of natural events without imparting too much energy to go into deeper understanding. Those light explanations will also entertain them as they would get a feeling of being wise and make them happy.

But they are also too lazy to take the trouble of digging up deeper truth. Hence there will be effort to translate complicated scientific phenomena in simple and small number of explanations. This is an impossibility and cannot be done without sacrificing the correctness of the subject. This is where communication between scientists and public fails.

Most pseudosciences are not generated with an intention to mislead general public. Its the product of trying to do the impossible.

I agree with zz than when communicating science with general public it have to be cheesy and entertaining. You can't blame them for not showing effort because its their nature. And I think it'll always be that way.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Let's not bicker people, this is a serious subject that needs careful consideration and discussion.

 

[chiro]

Let's not bicker people, this is a serious subject that needs careful consideration and discussion.

The responses in this thread have been really good IMO.

As an exercise to see what people are used and what they have come to expect in terms of delivery, content and otherwise, sit down and watch a little bit of the news on the TV or some kind of informative thing like a current affairs program. I personally hate watching them, but realize that a lot of people have this kind of expectation when they want information that is more 'serious' than say the comedy shows or CSI (and whatever else they show nowadays).

If you couple with that with the endless supplies of movies, video games, and constant exposure to things that have highly levels of exaggeration, fantasy, and other kinds of blatant distortions or departures from reality, then what you end up getting is a really impatient audience who ends up getting bored when they hear something a lot more factual, closer to the truth, and un-edited.

Think about all the sci-fi movies, TV-shows, video games, and any other content that is digested very frequently: the back to the futures, stargate, star trek, and so on and then consider how many people actually know even a little bit of real science like Newtons Laws and then think about how many people actually understand how anything really works like a mobile phone or a broadband telecommunications network or a computer.

Unfortunately science, math, and so on is boring because people are so used to having the firecrackers, action movies, video games, and all these other distractions that are not normal which ends up making normal boring and hyper-normal closer to normal.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

The responses in this thread have been really good IMO.

This thread has been pruned.

Overall I agree with what you're saying. Entertainment containing bad science and entertaining pseudo-science is better to watch than dry science shows but a lot of science shows do include entertainment. Either through engaging presenters (Brian Cox, Attenborough), good camera work (wildlife documentaries) or interesting CGI (journey through the solar system) etc. If anything science media as an independent field needs to develop.

 

[ZapperZ]

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.

If you have, did you learn anything from your effort? Did you think your efforts were productive? What lessons can you convey to the group here?

If you haven't, why not?

Zz.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

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.

If you have, did you learn anything from your effort? Did you think your efforts were productive? What lessons can you convey to the group here?

If you haven't, why not?

Zz.

I have (not going to say what because I'd rather not give to much info away). It was interesting, I found that the majority of people were very interested in what I had to say. They had many questions and enjoyed the discourse. However something that was hard was trying to get to people who weren't looking to have a discussion about science, I kept thinking that the good response from most people was because they were the type of people who would look for communication.

Something else that was interesting was that most people were not surprised to learn that a lot of things were pseudo-science and bunk. For the most part it seems that people are fully aware that many things are rubbish and trust what they hear tentatively.

 

[chiro]

This thread has been pruned.

Overall I agree with what you're saying. Entertainment containing bad science and entertaining pseudo-science is better to watch than dry science shows but a lot of science shows do include entertainment. Either through engaging presenters (Brian Cox, Attenborough), good camera work (wildlife documentaries) or interesting CGI (journey through the solar system) etc. If anything science media as an independent field needs to develop.

One thing that I would like to share were my experiences in education classes and in relation to doing a practicum for high school teaching in mathematics. For the education classes, the science and math teaching students were together and the head teacher was an ex-science teacher.

The major thing that the teacher emphasized was making the classes 'interesting'.

Now some of you may say 'well duh that's obvious', but it turns out that he would give a lot of examples of how things could be made boring and emphasized situations in a classroom discussion of many instances when things were boring as a product of peoples own participation in the discussion.

Now this relates to this thread in the way that we also have to remember how childrens' perception of science is moulded from their high school experiences, and I would gather as an inference, that most people do not get a lot out of their compulsory science education and subsequently develop an automatic negative impression to it.

I know that this is common for math and I understand why this is: primarily it's because it's taught badly, the teachers have a tendency to be boring, it is completely unpersonal, and it can be made a lot harder and a lot more complicated in many instances than it has to be.

The high school experience no doubt leaves a kind of bad taste in the mouths of many students and I wouldn't be surprised if this was a big contributing factor among others.