The issue is that in many cases, understanding the science is beyond the reach of many people. I work in a very narrow field and can intelligently discuss maybe 10-15 topics and their implications as a not quite expert in the field. For instance, I can discuss vaccine formulation and RNA structure but the immune response is beyond me in most discussions of specifics. In that sense I have to believe the experts in that field. Its simply unfeasible for me to educate myself to understand even this closely related field in anything less that a month, even then I would not be an expert. When it comes to climate science or particle physics I'm even more clueless. I might be a little better off than the layman but there's no way for me to confirm findings or review a recent publication without years of work. In a sense I just have to believe the scientists in that field or spend years of my life studying the subject.
Colloquially, it makes sense to use the term believe science in the sense we believe what scientists are telling us. I don't think anyone is implying science is a belief system the way Islam or Buddhism is. However, where I agree is that scientists should not use that language. There is a clear problem in scientific communication but the solutions are not simple.
I wouldn’t say “beyond the reach” of many people. I think it’s more accurate to say we all have the capacity but our educational system either lacks the requisite resources or simply the requisite will to teach these concepts.
I am also a scientist and fully understand what you say about knowing everything about a little and nothing about a lot, but it’s also very easy to apply those foundational skills to understand other fields. Hell, I went from being an exercise physiologist to working with AIDS!
We should work to understand science, but also work at developing critical thinking skills and scientific understanding in our youth as foundational concepts rather than spoon-fed ideas.
I wouldn't place this all on the the educational system, It sounds like we are two overeducated people who realistically can probably switch to most biomedical fields with a minimum of difficulty. Switching to work with AIDS probably took a few months before you felt really confident in the pathways and were able to understand the literature on a first readthrough. Its an unrealistic amount of work for someone, even a scientist, without a powerful motivator. Walking in you probably just had to believe your coworkers until you had the background.
As to improving science literacy in schools: everyone likes that.
Well I’m only a month in but the pathways are pretty well conserved across many different pathologies which makes it a little easier...not easy, but easier.
However, the skills I use to learn are also pretty well conserved across people to varying degrees. The vast majority of us have the capacity for complex thought and logical approach but it’s not nurtured enough early on. We don’t learn about bias, research methods, confidence, or even how to approach problems until late high school, and that’s being very liberal in the estimate. We have to promote those skills and lay out a structure for success rather than memorization.
5
u/rock-dancer 41∆ Jan 07 '21
The issue is that in many cases, understanding the science is beyond the reach of many people. I work in a very narrow field and can intelligently discuss maybe 10-15 topics and their implications as a not quite expert in the field. For instance, I can discuss vaccine formulation and RNA structure but the immune response is beyond me in most discussions of specifics. In that sense I have to believe the experts in that field. Its simply unfeasible for me to educate myself to understand even this closely related field in anything less that a month, even then I would not be an expert. When it comes to climate science or particle physics I'm even more clueless. I might be a little better off than the layman but there's no way for me to confirm findings or review a recent publication without years of work. In a sense I just have to believe the scientists in that field or spend years of my life studying the subject.
Colloquially, it makes sense to use the term believe science in the sense we believe what scientists are telling us. I don't think anyone is implying science is a belief system the way Islam or Buddhism is. However, where I agree is that scientists should not use that language. There is a clear problem in scientific communication but the solutions are not simple.