Science is more than theory and rocket scientists. I am a practical scientist- a homemaker- and dislike the snobbism of this topic.
On Aug 9, 9:21�am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > Unscientific America: How scientific illiteracy threatens our future > by Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum: Basic Books > This is an edited review from New Scientist. > > The rationale for science communication usually goes something like > this. In a democracy, the public needs to be informed. Issues like > energy policy and healthcare depend on science. Therefore, researchers > and communicators need to keep the public engaged with science. > > All very reasonable. But why should the public engage with science > specifically? I don't mean why in a what-is-science-worth sense. > Science is obviously important. But immigration policy and foreign > debt are important too, and the public does a good job of not thinking > too deeply about either. Why should science be any different? > > The question matters because science, as Chris Mooney and Sheril > Kirshenbaum describe in Unscientific America, remains on the margins > of US culture and politics. Climate change could sink cities and cause > mass extinctions, yet only around half of US voters rated the > environment an important issue in last year's elections. Roughly the > same proportion believe that the Earth was created by God in the last > 10,000 years. �I particularly liked their warnings about the divisive > impact of public figures such as Richard Dawkins and P. Z. Myers, who > sometimes appear to be on a mission to offend churchgoers. > > But Mooney and Kirshenbaum don't seem to have asked themselves the > "why science?" question. The book is infused with a sense that science > does not just deserve a place at the top table of politics, it is > entitled to one. When discussing the failure of a campaign to get last > year's US presidential candidates to attend a debate on science, for > example, the authors accuse the media of ignoring a story that was > "news by any reasonable standard". I'm not sure that many people > outside the world of science would agree. Worthy is not the same as > newsworthy. > > By looking only at science, Unscientific America misses the big > picture. Yes, the latest findings on climate change and other areas of > science need to be heard on Capitol Hill and in the media. But so does > sound reasoning about America's absurd prison policy or the country's > counterproductive efforts to combat drug use. Political and media > discussions of many complex issues are, unfortunately, dominated by > vested interests and prejudice rather than rational argument. The > problem here is not with public engagement in science - it is with > public engagement. > > Thought the book worth mentioning here, partly because our debates, if > not crystallizing yet, do extend beyond its contents. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
