Science is a process for finding and developing reproducible truths through rigorous processes that "ask nature". However, most people never encounter the Scientific process. They take Science classes where discoveries and established theories are presented dogmatically. Then media take any finding, add a fantastical level of speculation, and report it out as a singular spectacular advance.
It would be interesting to discuss how we got here. I have noticed through the 1970's, 80's and 90's our pushes for better science education have typically become pushes to educate more science specialists. We also need more general science and technology literacy - and numeracy - for everyone else, across the board.
And perhaps education for society wide science literacy should focus less on measuring below the meniscus and drawing Gaussian surfaces and more on how science works and how to evaluate popular science news and medua.
Great point! Science is often taught as a collection of fixed facts rather than an ongoing process, which can lead to misunderstandings about how it actually works. I try to highlight scientists who explain the scientific method and discuss it myself, but conclusions tend to grab more attention than the process behind them!
Often people don't experience real experimental science until they're a few years into a PhD program. And we use fixed facts approaches to evaluate science aptitude as well. I met too many people who were halfway through a PhD program and pretty committed when they realized they didn't like science. And too many people who might have been talented practitioners, but were turned off by years of remembering facts. They never got to see that hypotheses and experimental design are creative as well as rigorous. And of course as soon as someone gets really good at experimental science, they're usually pushed into more administrative roles.
Science is a process for finding and developing reproducible truths through rigorous processes that "ask nature". However, most people never encounter the Scientific process. They take Science classes where discoveries and established theories are presented dogmatically. Then media take any finding, add a fantastical level of speculation, and report it out as a singular spectacular advance.
It would be interesting to discuss how we got here. I have noticed through the 1970's, 80's and 90's our pushes for better science education have typically become pushes to educate more science specialists. We also need more general science and technology literacy - and numeracy - for everyone else, across the board.
And perhaps education for society wide science literacy should focus less on measuring below the meniscus and drawing Gaussian surfaces and more on how science works and how to evaluate popular science news and medua.
Great point! Science is often taught as a collection of fixed facts rather than an ongoing process, which can lead to misunderstandings about how it actually works. I try to highlight scientists who explain the scientific method and discuss it myself, but conclusions tend to grab more attention than the process behind them!
Often people don't experience real experimental science until they're a few years into a PhD program. And we use fixed facts approaches to evaluate science aptitude as well. I met too many people who were halfway through a PhD program and pretty committed when they realized they didn't like science. And too many people who might have been talented practitioners, but were turned off by years of remembering facts. They never got to see that hypotheses and experimental design are creative as well as rigorous. And of course as soon as someone gets really good at experimental science, they're usually pushed into more administrative roles.
It's a hot mess.