The controversy created by
evolution certainly has a foundation in issues of science and faith, but part
of the controversy also comes from what
seems to be a growing divide between
science and the lay community. This divide has not always seemed so large—in
the twentieth century, well-publicized innovations ranging from the polio
vaccine to the moon landing inspired faith and passion in science. However, in
America, excitement about science does not seem to reach the same levels
anymore. Here are a few possible
reasons why:
1.
An education
system that used to be the best in the world declined, possibly leaving
American children less enthusiastic about science and math: http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-838207.html.
To be fair, this decline may be overstated. It is only relative to other
countries; on an absolute scale, our system has improved. Over the past twenty
years, high school drop-out rates have decreased
in America, and higher percentages of students take advanced science and math
courses and go to college: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012026.pdf,
http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acs-14.pdf,
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/education/elementary_and_secondary_education_completions_and_dropouts.html
. Of course, America would still like to be the best in education in the world,
as well as reduce disparities between ethnic groups. But these data suggest the
system is actually improving.
2.
Although it remains the most prestigious
profession, science has slightly fallen in prestige
(like most other professions): http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/employment/2005-05-23-prestige-usat_x.htm.
However, considering that the poll was unscientific and most professions have
fallen in prestige, we must take this information with a grain of salt.
3.
Some people (even educated ones) may believe
that scientists insert their political
agendas into their findings. http://theweek.com/article/index/226338/why-conservatives-increasingly-distrust-science-4-theories.
This belief might explain some of the divide. Fundamentalist Christians tend to
be political conservatives, and conservatives tend to see economic gain from
environmental pollution as a bigger benefit/smaller risk than liberals do (liberal
and moderate support remained flat). However, although scientists tend to be
liberal, people who believe scientists purposely distort findings underestimate
scientific integrity and the scientific consensus on such issues as evolution
and global warming.
4.
Perhaps the most important and likely reason is
a problem that has always plagued scientific communication: scientific research is incremental and
imperfect, whereas lay people expect cataclysmic, irrefutable facts. http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1174
Thus, proponents of creationism/intelligent design (ID) not only denounce
evolution as having modest findings and conflicting data, but they also tout
their “theory” as a large, simple, unified set of assertions. Of course, in
science those modest findings accumulate into large ones, and conflicts lead to
greater understanding. And the large, simple, and unified assertions from
creationism come from un-falsifiable, unscientific ideas.
Unlike science, the court of public
opinion is a democracy, and some scientists may fear this democracy has turned
more and more against them. But reasons 1 and 2 (above) seem weak and
overstated by the media (I actually believed they were huge reasons for
distrust of science before I wrote this post). Reason 3 may show that the
growing political divide in America has included science in the fray. Finally,
the most important reason, reason 4, is not news. The incremental and imperfect
nature of science has always been difficult to communicate. But what is
encouraging is that scientists can manage this issue.
Scientists can easily communicate
why evolution is important—its broad impact in every aspect of biology has
vastly improved our understanding of biochemistry, ecology, and medicine. Evolution
helps us understand fundamental questions about our existence, questions everyone (not just scientists) has. And
evolution is just utterly fascinating. The beauty and diversity of nature,
especially the varied phenotypes of plants and animals, astound us from when we
are young children.
In conclusion, science and
scientists still command great respect in America (though there is always room
for improvement). But, as always, lay people also demand scientists to be great
communicators and to explain science in an easy-to-understand way. Although
various polls provide different numbers on how many Americans believe in
evolution, at least one (conducted by the Federation of American Societies for
Experimental Biology) suggests that 61% of Americans would rather hear about
evolution from a scientist than from a judge or a celebrity.
Do you think that another aspect of this large divide could be that as scientific boundaries become pushed farther and farther out, it becomes harder to understand the exact ramifications of findings in science? As in, it becomes harder to understand exactly how all this research applies to everyday life in the short term?
ReplyDeleteAlso, another interesting point is that scientists often have to make a choice between becoming public figures and continuing to pursue research. In order to become public educators or advisors, scientists must be willing to put aside their pursuit of research in order to spend more time educating the public on scientific breakthroughs (which by the time it gets down to the general public, wouldn't be considered cutting edge by scientific researchers in the field).
I wonder if another reason for the divide lies in an inability for lay people to easily access scientific findings. Most science journals and peer-reviewed articles aren't available to the public, meaning that people with no affiliation to universities or scientific organizations have little access to new scientific developments. Lay people can only get information from second hand articles that can often be written by people who aren't scientists themselves. Maybe increasing access to primary scientific literature would help mend the divide.
ReplyDeleteOf course, that alone wouldn't close the gap, but it might be a step in the right direction. Your points are very valid as well and definitely issues that should be looked at.
I had the same question Jim brought up: is the lack of "practical application" of the scientific findings driving lay people away? I think part of the answer to this question was touched on in reason 4 when you say people expect cataclysmic, irrefutable facts. Maybe they also expect mind-blowing discoveries but lately the implication of scientific findings are not clear or not "impressive" enough.
ReplyDeleteI think Katelyn also brought up a good point about the accessibility of the findings of the scientific community. I believe there was an article on the BBC about this recently.
These all seem to be interesting points. I think the accessibility of scientific findings to the average person is a large factor. Although, there must be some way to elevate the "prestige" of science in the eyes of the average adolescent going through public school.
ReplyDeleteJim and Elise:
ReplyDeleteAt theoretical extremes, science can seem like it has no bearing on real life (e.g. why should I care about dark matter?). But on the flip side, everybody cares about the amazing advances in computing hardware and software. Clearly, this technology is impressive but taken for granted by many (admittedly, by me too).
I also agree that scientists are busier than ever just as the pace of advance quickens, leaving them less able to be public figures.
Katelyn: Direct access to cutting-edge science could be extremely helpful, particularly for budding scientists. But much of the lay public only wants science presented in a simple way. As you implied, I think the people who "break it down" should know what they're talking about.
William: True, we can always do better. Here are some points I think both teachers and scientists can make, emphasizing benefits to the individual:
ReplyDelete$$$. Unfortunately, scientists usually don't make big green (I'd skip that detail). However, doctors, engineers, and economists acquainted with high-level math do very well.
The merit-based nature of science. Sure, every field requires networking, but your knowledge and the quality of your ideas are extremely important in science. What could be more American than earning your recognition?
Most of all, we cannot let young people take science for granted. Plain old curiosity is at the heart of any scientific interest.
Any other ideas for how to make science more appealing to the average American adolescent?
Also, social psychologists and sociologists have pointed to a difference in attitude between American culture and many Eastern cultures:
ReplyDeleteIn America, when we assess academic success or failure, we often point to innate intelligence as a reason (e.g. "She is so smart"). Eastern cultures stress effort as the reason for academic success or failure (e.g. "She works very hard"). Asian and Asian-American parents also tend to have higher standards and better attitudes in favor of academic success than American parents:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1131808?origin=crossref
I think teachers and parents in America should try hard to follow this example. Emphasizing hard work would bring the best out of every student, and emphasizing innate ability may actually be relatively harmful:
http://www.stanford.com/dept/psychology/cgi-bin/drupalm/system/files/Intelligence%2520Praise%2520Can%2520Undermine%2520Motivation%2520and%2520Performance.pdf
Science is a money burning business. Even though, I do not think any political stuff should be involved. We should let out scientist decide what topics should we look into and where should us spend our money.
ReplyDeleteFor the attitude between American culture and Eastern culture, I would say ,at least, Chinese do works very hard before university. And people noways worry that these is actually killing the creativity of the students.(Because all we do is doing exercise repeatedly.)As people go into university, American students definitely works harder than Chinese students.