Communication of Science (only a little ranty)
So according to a poll on the bbc it seems that only 48% of the population of the UK thinks that evolution is the probabl means wy which life origionated on the planet.
Even if this is a masivly biased affair to boost the popularity of a rather flagging horizon season (and if they are resorting to these tactics that bodes well in itself) its still a number that seems massivly high for a predominantly (if not oficially) secular western democracy. So, should scientists be doing more to promote science and if so what should they be doing. There has beena lot of emphasis on this in the particle physics community in the last few years, so how is it failing so badly that a significant minority still have trouble acepting one of the easier to explan poseter child theorys.
Part of the probalem may be the lack of any decent science on the mainstrream braodcasting networks (religious programs and affairs gets several slots a week on TV on the beeb) Regular scientific programs are relegated to the occasional horison (whihc is becoming increasinly sensational and dramatic to the point of uselessnesless) and to radio 4's natural world. Granted traditional science broadcasitng may well have had far too many dodgy 70's haircuts and beige backgrounds, but witout some sort of media presence it will be very hard to inspirethe next generation of scientists.
What amazews me is that thisis hapening in the 'information age' our lives are DOMINATED by science to a toatally unprecidented extent yet it seems most people ate TOTALLY unaware and willing to accept the most ludicrous things. (horrorscopes, feunshui, crystral healing, auras, etc, etc)
So should anyhting be done, does it matter, what could WE reasonably do?
Should anything be done?
This is usually the point at whihc the whole thing comes off the rails. Is it the place of scientists to try and persuade people what to think, shouldnt they make their own minds up and eventualy come to reasonable conclusions. The trouble is that there is so little science in the popular domain that people have very little information with which to make those descisions.
(although personally i would be all up for a comapign of fire and the sword to convert people thats probaly not the most politicaly corect way to go about it)
Does it matter?
In the short term there are still enough people working in science so probaly not. In the long term It matters a great deal indeed, the only economic advantage a western country with a hih standardof living has over a developing country wth a larger population is its educated workforce, and the level of technology its companies can exploit. If the percentage of people with an understading of the value of science falls then government will find it increasinly hard to justify the amount it spends on R&D leading to further lagging behind our competitors. On the other hand it may not get that bad so should we care, i'd rather not have creationism in a british school any time i'm alive, and id rather it wasn't heaing that way but does it REALLY matter?
What could we reasonably do about it?
Should we take a more contraversial stance? denounce ipod wearing hippies as hypocrits for useing the benefits of technology, whilst denying the veracity of the science its based on. Posibly not, fun though it would be.
I'm thinking of making a website with a series of simple to do home build projects, torrented demonstrations and that sort of thing. So heres the question, what sort of cool things inspired people to study techy subjects, and have you any sugestions for cool web transmited things that could be done in a non man in a white coat manner.
Answers on a postcard (or even in a comment)
Even if this is a masivly biased affair to boost the popularity of a rather flagging horizon season (and if they are resorting to these tactics that bodes well in itself) its still a number that seems massivly high for a predominantly (if not oficially) secular western democracy. So, should scientists be doing more to promote science and if so what should they be doing. There has beena lot of emphasis on this in the particle physics community in the last few years, so how is it failing so badly that a significant minority still have trouble acepting one of the easier to explan poseter child theorys.
Part of the probalem may be the lack of any decent science on the mainstrream braodcasting networks (religious programs and affairs gets several slots a week on TV on the beeb) Regular scientific programs are relegated to the occasional horison (whihc is becoming increasinly sensational and dramatic to the point of uselessnesless) and to radio 4's natural world. Granted traditional science broadcasitng may well have had far too many dodgy 70's haircuts and beige backgrounds, but witout some sort of media presence it will be very hard to inspirethe next generation of scientists.
What amazews me is that thisis hapening in the 'information age' our lives are DOMINATED by science to a toatally unprecidented extent yet it seems most people ate TOTALLY unaware and willing to accept the most ludicrous things. (horrorscopes, feunshui, crystral healing, auras, etc, etc)
So should anyhting be done, does it matter, what could WE reasonably do?
Should anything be done?
This is usually the point at whihc the whole thing comes off the rails. Is it the place of scientists to try and persuade people what to think, shouldnt they make their own minds up and eventualy come to reasonable conclusions. The trouble is that there is so little science in the popular domain that people have very little information with which to make those descisions.
(although personally i would be all up for a comapign of fire and the sword to convert people thats probaly not the most politicaly corect way to go about it)
Does it matter?
In the short term there are still enough people working in science so probaly not. In the long term It matters a great deal indeed, the only economic advantage a western country with a hih standardof living has over a developing country wth a larger population is its educated workforce, and the level of technology its companies can exploit. If the percentage of people with an understading of the value of science falls then government will find it increasinly hard to justify the amount it spends on R&D leading to further lagging behind our competitors. On the other hand it may not get that bad so should we care, i'd rather not have creationism in a british school any time i'm alive, and id rather it wasn't heaing that way but does it REALLY matter?
What could we reasonably do about it?
Should we take a more contraversial stance? denounce ipod wearing hippies as hypocrits for useing the benefits of technology, whilst denying the veracity of the science its based on. Posibly not, fun though it would be.
I'm thinking of making a website with a series of simple to do home build projects, torrented demonstrations and that sort of thing. So heres the question, what sort of cool things inspired people to study techy subjects, and have you any sugestions for cool web transmited things that could be done in a non man in a white coat manner.
Answers on a postcard (or even in a comment)