I was thinking about the role of science in society today while listening to the Anthem of Science performed by Melodysheep, who's arranged (and auto-tuned) a variety of scientists and what they think of science. Not surprisingly, a lot of common claims are made in this song. In the interest in seeing what people think about how science is advertised to the masses, I want to raise some questions about what these popularizers are saying.
"Science is the best tool ever devised for understanding how the world works."
This is the first line of the song, but is it true? What does science explain and how does it explain it? Can science explain the complex things which are difficult to quantify or explain through understanding its parts? Also, is it superior to others tools of understanding? Why would that be?
"If you're scientifically literate, the world looks very different to you, and that understanding empowers you."
This line (from Nova's Neil deGrasse Tyson) reminds me of Bacon, who was the first to equate knowledge to power. Is scientific literacy a form of power? If so, is this a good thing?
"There's real poetry in the real world. Science is the poetry of reality."
A surprising quote from Richard Dawkins, this could have come out of the mouth of Thomas Kuhn. Scientific paradigms, according to him, are metaphors for understanding the real world. Personally, this is one of my favorite lines in the song (and from Dawkins). If this is true, though, it would seem that we can only hope for an imperfect understanding of nature through science. Is this what Dawkins means when he says this? If so, I wonder if it's incompatible with the first statement made in this song (by Shermer, above).
"We can do science, and with it, we can improve our lives."
I think this is at the core of the scientific ideal and the driving force of Modernity. Here's an interesting question though: can we use science to prove the validity of this claim? Sagan had an interest in the philosophy of science, so I'm sure he must not have said this thoughtlessly.
"The story of humans is the story of ideas that shine light into dark corners."
Science as a light in the dark. This was said by Jill Tarter, not Sagan as one might expect, nor from Alexander Pope who said:
Nature and nature's laws lay hid in Night.
God said, 'Let Newton be!' and all was light.
Perhaps we're more modest these days about the light cast by science, but is it fair to compare science to a light? Is this a workable metaphor or is it misleading?
Of course, there's a lot more lyrics to this song, but I'll comment on only just one more:
"Science replaces private prejudice with publicly verifiable evidence."
Another by Dawkins, this one much more typical of him. Could we not modify this to "Science replaces private prejudice with publicly acceptable prejudice."? Why or why not?
Hopefully this song spurs some conversation on science, what it is, and what it's role is in society. How contemporary popularizers of science talk about science and how the fans filter these messages is important for us all to understand. I wonder if anyone has any comments or concerns about how science is portrayed in books or on TV by these popularizers (or their fans like Melodysheep).
What can we learn from the popularizers of science?
-
Metadigital
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 4:10 pm
- Location: Dallas, Tx
-
bytesplicer
- Posts: 77
- Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 12:02 pm
Re: What can we learn from the popularizers of science?
Very cute song 
Here's my opinions...
"Science is the best tool ever devised for understanding how the world works."
To say it is the best tool ever devised is slightly inaccurate in my opinion, science itself is built upon tools and techniques acquired over time, as well as being a collective extension and refinement of our 'inbuilt' tools such as measurement, observation, and awareness of cause and effect and, perhaps most important of all, our imagination. What we call science now, compared to say, what we called science in the early 1900s, show that science is a continuously improving process. It's really the only tool we have. I guess religion could count as a tool, but the goal here is to know what you need to do to please your master, understanding of the world appears incidental and is certainly not systematic.
Science allows us to catalogue relationships between the things we observe in nature. The relationships we see can be used to devise technology, or predict and seek out further relationships. It all starts relative to us, and from our first measurements we've gradually built a web of knowledge based on these relationships. Nearly all new discoveries are based on a relationship with a previous discovery, though occasional imaginative leaps allow us to start building relationships from deep within unknown territory.
If there's a relationship between some phenomenon we observe, science should eventually find it, with the will and if our technology allows us to probe far enough. If there's no discernible relationship or pattern then there isn't much science can do to help, though given time the situation may change.
"If you're scientifically literate, the world looks very different to you, and that understanding empowers you."
It does change your view, but how this empowers or effects you depends on a lot on who you are already. Some use it literally as a tool, not thinking too much about what it's saying about our reality. Some look deeper, truly trying to understand the nature of things. This can be quite dangerous, leading to depression and other forms of mental illness. Whether such instability is important for doing great science, or whether it is the result of doing great science is still hard to determine.
"There's real poetry in the real world. Science is the poetry of reality."
I agree with this, my view is that scientific understanding is the pursuit of empathy with the universe, or in other words, thinking from the point of view of the universe. Science in this regard mirrors our own personal development as we learn to see the world from points of view other than our own. Through science we are slowly achieving this empathy, though at the moment I'd say we're going through our selfish period, where (collectively) we only see the utility in things and how we can exploit them, rather than 'co-habiting' in harmony with our reality.
Science is imperfect, being based upon relationships we can only 'see' as far as the relationships we've catalogued. Continuing the empathy theme it's difficult, and sometimes impossible, to fully see another point of view without experiencing it, your knowledge will always be incomplete. There's no incompatibility with the first statement, it is simply that our best tool is an imperfect tool. But science is not static and is by definition continuously improving.
"We can do science, and with it, we can improve our lives."
We can improve our lives through science, but it really depends on how we use it, as with any other tool. Many people improve their lives through religion, again, it depends on how it is used. Happiness is happiness, some people get this through better living conditions, some have it within themselves. With science we can in principle remove poverty, hunger, disease and misery. This could be seen as an improvement, then again it is these negatives that drive us. It all depends on how our society and individuals handle it, and again science is just a tool in this regard.
"The story of humans is the story of ideas that shine light into dark corners."
This is just the idea of revealing things that are hidden, and the removal of fear of the unknown. There's nothing wrong or misleading in this, the only argument (which I don't subscribe to) against it being that some things may best be left hidden and that fear of the unknown can be useful in dangerous situations.
"Science replaces private prejudice with publicly verifiable evidence."
This is true I think, but depends on a largely well educated and critically thinking public. Without this there are real dangers of the publicly acceptable prejudice of which you speak. The desire for understanding and 'the truth' is really a minority activity and view, many happily make use of the 'produce' without really caring much about the understanding. The fact that science is becoming a dominant force is nothing to do with the understanding it brings, but rather the benefits. As with most of the issues here, science is a tool, it is society at large which shapes our prejudices.
Science is an inevitable result of competition and people's prejudices toward one another, an arms race of knowledge that has replaced an arms race of muscle. The sad fact is a lot of our knowledge is acquired by individuals or organisations who want 'an edge' in some way, or through the process of war. If we can conquer our aggressive nature then science can bring about heaven on earth (and beyond!) but we may lose our primary driving force in the process. If we can't it will destroy us.
Here's my opinions..."Science is the best tool ever devised for understanding how the world works."
To say it is the best tool ever devised is slightly inaccurate in my opinion, science itself is built upon tools and techniques acquired over time, as well as being a collective extension and refinement of our 'inbuilt' tools such as measurement, observation, and awareness of cause and effect and, perhaps most important of all, our imagination. What we call science now, compared to say, what we called science in the early 1900s, show that science is a continuously improving process. It's really the only tool we have. I guess religion could count as a tool, but the goal here is to know what you need to do to please your master, understanding of the world appears incidental and is certainly not systematic.
Science allows us to catalogue relationships between the things we observe in nature. The relationships we see can be used to devise technology, or predict and seek out further relationships. It all starts relative to us, and from our first measurements we've gradually built a web of knowledge based on these relationships. Nearly all new discoveries are based on a relationship with a previous discovery, though occasional imaginative leaps allow us to start building relationships from deep within unknown territory.
If there's a relationship between some phenomenon we observe, science should eventually find it, with the will and if our technology allows us to probe far enough. If there's no discernible relationship or pattern then there isn't much science can do to help, though given time the situation may change.
"If you're scientifically literate, the world looks very different to you, and that understanding empowers you."
It does change your view, but how this empowers or effects you depends on a lot on who you are already. Some use it literally as a tool, not thinking too much about what it's saying about our reality. Some look deeper, truly trying to understand the nature of things. This can be quite dangerous, leading to depression and other forms of mental illness. Whether such instability is important for doing great science, or whether it is the result of doing great science is still hard to determine.
"There's real poetry in the real world. Science is the poetry of reality."
I agree with this, my view is that scientific understanding is the pursuit of empathy with the universe, or in other words, thinking from the point of view of the universe. Science in this regard mirrors our own personal development as we learn to see the world from points of view other than our own. Through science we are slowly achieving this empathy, though at the moment I'd say we're going through our selfish period, where (collectively) we only see the utility in things and how we can exploit them, rather than 'co-habiting' in harmony with our reality.
Science is imperfect, being based upon relationships we can only 'see' as far as the relationships we've catalogued. Continuing the empathy theme it's difficult, and sometimes impossible, to fully see another point of view without experiencing it, your knowledge will always be incomplete. There's no incompatibility with the first statement, it is simply that our best tool is an imperfect tool. But science is not static and is by definition continuously improving.
"We can do science, and with it, we can improve our lives."
We can improve our lives through science, but it really depends on how we use it, as with any other tool. Many people improve their lives through religion, again, it depends on how it is used. Happiness is happiness, some people get this through better living conditions, some have it within themselves. With science we can in principle remove poverty, hunger, disease and misery. This could be seen as an improvement, then again it is these negatives that drive us. It all depends on how our society and individuals handle it, and again science is just a tool in this regard.
"The story of humans is the story of ideas that shine light into dark corners."
This is just the idea of revealing things that are hidden, and the removal of fear of the unknown. There's nothing wrong or misleading in this, the only argument (which I don't subscribe to) against it being that some things may best be left hidden and that fear of the unknown can be useful in dangerous situations.
"Science replaces private prejudice with publicly verifiable evidence."
This is true I think, but depends on a largely well educated and critically thinking public. Without this there are real dangers of the publicly acceptable prejudice of which you speak. The desire for understanding and 'the truth' is really a minority activity and view, many happily make use of the 'produce' without really caring much about the understanding. The fact that science is becoming a dominant force is nothing to do with the understanding it brings, but rather the benefits. As with most of the issues here, science is a tool, it is society at large which shapes our prejudices.
Science is an inevitable result of competition and people's prejudices toward one another, an arms race of knowledge that has replaced an arms race of muscle. The sad fact is a lot of our knowledge is acquired by individuals or organisations who want 'an edge' in some way, or through the process of war. If we can conquer our aggressive nature then science can bring about heaven on earth (and beyond!) but we may lose our primary driving force in the process. If we can't it will destroy us.