# Sticky  How to increase the popularity of Science?



## absentminded

The only real way to increase the popularity of science is to expose people to it as children. You show them that there's this whole other world that they might have never noticed.

Instead of lullabies, I'd ask my dad (an INTJ engineer) how gravity works, or light, or computers. And I'd fall asleep learning about boolean logic or electron orbitals.

Between my avatar and my signature, I'd say the method worked.


----------



## Kilgore Trout

absentminded said:


> *The only real way to increase the popularity of science is to expose people to it as children. You show them that there's this whole other world that they might have never noticed.*
> 
> Instead of lullabies, I'd ask my dad (an INTJ engineer) how gravity works, or light, or computers. And I'd fall asleep learning about boolean logic or electron orbitals.
> 
> Between my avatar and my signature, I'd say the method worked.


I find that many people begin with a curiosity about the components of science and the mysterious but are often taken by mysticism, pseudo-science, and the like, which seems to be regularly exploited by the media. Exposing a child to the basics of science in a clear and comprehensive way, while letting the kid experiment with ideas that they are interested with, would definitely give some the incentive to continue with science as a hobby, or at the least, give them scientific literacy, so they can deal with the hustlers and greed-heads of the world.


----------



## Roudy79

Surely stimulating science during our formative years will help. Personally I feel that science could distance itself a little less from regular people. Make your fields of science more accessible to others, by not being such arrogant douches. Stop wearing those silly white gowns that are only meant to emphasize differences between people. Don't act as if you guys are smart and every one else is so dumb. Also, stop hiding behind the rich people and governments that pay the bills for your research. Now a lot of good things you guys come up with are sifted through and distorted by certain political views or private interests.

Let me give you one example. In the aftermath of World War II, German scientists who worked for the Nazis were flown in and hired by the USA to continue their work under a different flag. See what I mean? I can see how, from the viewpoint of the scientist, there is no difference in where or for whom he does his work - but for the rest of the people it does. The Jews weren't happy with the Nazi scientists and a lot of other people are unhappy with the work of the same scientists now that they work for the USA. The scientists should see this coming and have, in my view, no case complaining about lack of public praise or interest.


----------



## TheBeanie

Present it as : "Science smart is the new street hot" or something. People tend to like getting involved into the "in" and "trendy" things, what everyone is talking about. Like the whole ridiculous 13-17 year olds in geeky glasses trend. I don't know, in high schools, children who like to learn still have to face bullies because of it. That attitude, if flipped would do wonders. More entertaining TV shows and movies about science that are aimed at young adults (like the big bang theory) ought to change things bit by bit. I think typical movies reinforce how certain stereotypes are treated. If that changes, a whole lot will.


----------



## Sputnik

REASON 1:
When I was in grade school, my history teacher showed me a picture of a hill that had been cut in two by the San Andreas Fault and was now several hundred feet apart. I looked at the map on the wall, saw the obvious connection between Africa and South America and then argued with my teacher that continents can move apart after billions of years and millions of earthquakes. At that time, such a thought was akin to scientific hearasy but now it is accepted as fact. Until recently, you could get many science books that explained how lightning was created, but now there is a new theory that lightning needs cosmic rays to occur. Pet theories about ancient societies (and the benevolent Maya) abound; so as long as scientists push forward their pet theories and hypotheses' as absolute truth, and then have other scientists go on to the next "real" truth instead of just saying "we don't know" people are going to get turned off by the lies.

REASON 2:
The hippies are arguably the most educated people in the U.S. (and the world) and look at all the trouble they caused. Educated (informed) people want their leaders to be accountable and are not as likely to believe the "my country right or wrong" propoganda as someone who is ignorant of the facts. The true leaders of the world do not want people who are well educated except as "specialists" who know next to nothing about anything except their little niche. Coincidentally, today is often called the "age of specialization."

REASON 3:
Is a bloodhound smarter than a bloodhound? Despite the propoganda about IQ's, humans are generally equally intelligent. In order for intelligence to be fostered, a person needs the right kinds of stimulation, encouragement, and reward. Very few people are rewarded for being intelligent, and fewer people are taught how to think critically; what's left is people who need stimulation and find music, sports, movies, reality TV, ad nauseum, their escape from recognizing their ignorance (they can communicate with others of their kind about this crap and pretend it's meaningful).


----------



## DeductiveReasoner

First, we need to get tv shows made for pre-teens and teenagers to quit bashing science nerds, so the next generation will get over trying to be cool and do something worthwhile.

I'll think of some more later.


----------



## DeductiveReasoner

absentminded said:


> The only real way to increase the popularity of science is to expose people to it as children. You show them that there's this whole other world that they might have never noticed.
> 
> Instead of lullabies, I'd ask my dad (an INTJ engineer) how gravity works, or light, or computers. And I'd fall asleep learning about boolean logic or electron orbitals.
> 
> Between my avatar and my signature, I'd say the method worked.


I used to do the same thing to my ISTJ dad. I remember being three years old and already knowing all about the solar system. But back on topic: I agree with what you said about getting kids interested in science. I'm fed up with the tv shows and movies that portray kids with scientific interests as nothing but losers with no lives. Just about EVERYTHING on the disney channel does this now. Except the show Phineas and Ferb. It does a good job with having smart kids being cool.


----------



## IDontThinkSo

skycloud86 said:


> How to increase the popularity of Science?


By diminishing the number of fools ?


----------



## Sarin

For starters.. science has to be in your blood.

Just like artists and athletes, you need to have a knack for what you do.
Once you find out that you're good at something, you automatically start to like it and develop your skills.

For example, I don't have much affinity with (visual) art.
I can't paint, I'm a bad drawer and I really can't create sculptures.
So it pretty obvious that I'm not a born artist like Rembrand, van Gogh or Monet.

However, I do have a knack for exploring, math, physics and chemistry.
For some people it may look like a bunch of "hocus pokus" (in the same way painting is a mystery for me).
So naturally, science is a lot more appealing to me then art is.


IMO, the difference lies in how the eventual creations of science can benefit someone.
Nobody thinks about how an Iphone works, how the tires of your car are made or what happens when you strike a match... let alone stand what happens during a supernova, the physical laws of black holes and the processes inside the sun's core.. the very source of our existence, survival and eventually our demise.
Through the centuries, scientists made a lot of inventions and discoveries and "gave" them to society.. who really doesn't care how it works, as long as it works.
A lot of people don't think science is interresting, because they have other people to do that for them, they don't like to bother with formulas and calculations.

For some reason, the papers felt the need to publish articles about Paris Hilton's new dog, bad things about Muslims and riots in Greece.. but I Hardly read anything about the possible breaking of the lightbarrier on the frontpages.

I guess that every kind of person needs something to look up to... but for some, that thing is more complicated then others.


----------



## Ludendorff

Replace all church Sunday school for children with Sunday science school, where kids can learn about much more fun things that the bible. That and replace all commercials on kids channels with science. The fact is that from an early age kids are taught to care about their desires and their friends, but not about information and thinking. Who says a three year old can't learn simple math? Who says no kid would be interested in science at the age of 5? I say we should teach them early. Before kids can talk we should expose them to toys that promote critical thinking, like toy blocks. And, other than language, math should be top priority for early education. However, math can expand into areas like music, so really music is essential as well. I think science should also be top priority, case and point is the American disbelief in evolution. How dare our society sensor the truth in schools! We ought to teach concepts like evolution, gravity, ect. that are easy to understand to kids at an early age, and give them every tool available to expand their knowledge if they so choose. Our schooling needs refocusing, I believe math/science should be at the same level as literature and should be taught just as much. Most of the time, that doesn't happen.


----------



## SaturnComesBackAround

absentminded said:


> The only real way to increase the popularity of science is to expose people to it as children. You show them that there's this whole other world that they might have never noticed.
> 
> Instead of lullabies, I'd ask my dad (an INTJ engineer) how gravity works, or light, or computers. And I'd fall asleep learning about boolean logic or electron orbitals.
> 
> Between my avatar and my signature, I'd say the method worked.


If one can utilize the tool of media properly, one can get someone to pretty much be interested in anything.


----------



## ALNF1031

absentminded said:


> The only real way to increase the popularity of science is to expose people to it as children. You show them that there's this whole other world that they might have never noticed.
> 
> Instead of lullabies, I'd ask my dad (an INTJ engineer) how gravity works, or light, or computers. And I'd fall asleep learning about boolean logic or electron orbitals.
> 
> Between my avatar and my signature, I'd say the method worked.


So did it bore you to sleep? xD


----------



## FlatteringlyDerisive

... 
As the television displays images of comedic failure and that goofy amateur humor portrayed through modern society's idea of cartoons, more idealistic approaches could be made. I always watched the sci-fi channel as a growing child, in which increased my ambition to transcend reality and innovate concepts that raise our sense of understanding. If we showed extraordinary and supernatural scenarios with such intrigue, we may be able to sink into the minds of our younglings and convince them at the very basis of there lives that there are greater things to pursue in life than what is commonly associated. We must spark interest in society's sense of curiosity and views of science. Maybe we can show those weird nazi science projects in educational videos.


----------



## Luke

It's a hard task to increase the popularity of a skill that has a reputation for dramatically reducing your chances of getting laid. Perhaps a calendar featuring attractive scientists in swimsuits could help to reverse this perception?


----------



## Fleetfoot

I used to be excessively interested in science, and was doing the pre-med program at a top-notch college. Then I took an arrow to the knee...


But no, I felt like I learned a lot (not about science, but why I find it to be unnecessarily difficult to learn compared to other subjects) from that class alone. Whenever I would ask a question, I almost felt like I was ridiculed for not understanding the material, and a LOT of colleges use 'weed-out' classes, which I do think they are necessary to an extent, but more than half of the class failed, and we all studied our asses off just trying to pass that class. 
I didn't necessarily understand what was the point of learning what we did in the first place...it was a lot of theories, and we didn't necessarily talk about the basics of chemistry, and just skipped ahead to theories of what would happen to an electron if we were on a parallel universe planet or something really obscure. Even my mother (the chemistry major) commented on one of my exams 'This isn't chemistry, wtf kind of class are you taking?'

In short, it wasn't a fit learning environment, and I think that it is like that in a lot of places. Also, I didn't feel like I was learning the basics (which I feel like I should've been learning in the first place before we got to theories), so what could you go off of? Personally, I would probably even be interested in going into medical school still, because you're practicing what you're learning and it will become of use in your career.


----------



## mercurial

I had a conversation with Kevin Shortt about science education earlier this month. He is very passionate about educating people about the Canadian space industry, specifically how it's not as important to talk about astronauts or even the Canadian arm, as it is to talk about the research they do and their ability to turn them into practical applications on Earth. There's so much more practical stuff that the astronauts aren't involved in that it's unreal: government funding and policy, using radar stats to monitor the extraction of Alberta sands, CSA RADARSAT-1 Disaster Watch, etc. (not enough posts to post links yet, sorry!) The space technology is out there helping out people every day.

This is what's cool in the Canadian space industry. This is stuff that Canadians don't know about and should be proud of. We don't have Mars exploration rovers or probes going to Venus or things like that, but this practical stuff on Earth is the bleeding edge technology that countries around the world turn to Canada for. We have our work cut out to make this stuff cool and in the news; not just the robotic arm and things like that.


----------



## luemb

I think most of it comes down to having important authority figures in life that are interested in science themselves, and like to teach. My father also enjoyed having deep conversations with me about physics and the like, and bought me good physics books when I was very young. Teachers at school however seem to be limited quite a bit by curriculum, which may prevent them from teaching what the students need or are interested in. It is a struggle that is seen in every industry: how to balance between governments, who are working to ensure that at least some standard of quality is met, and individuals who should be able to reapply the standards as needed.


----------



## Tongo

Do you want more scientists, particulary, capable scientists? Or just make science more popular, as in having better social status?

If it is the former, forget it. You either have a thirst for it, or you dont't. The amount of effort it requires to be good at it can only come from the inside, not external reasons.

If it is about social standing, it is all about having visible figures that are also sociable, cool, fun and far from the nerdy stereotypes. People that realize laymen do not want to be taught, just entertained first and maybe taught second if it doesnt require too much inmediate effort and going out of your way. If it requires effort, it should come from the inside.

Market more people like Brian Cox and Neil deGrasse Tyson (youtube them).


----------



## 22575

Like this:


----------



## GentleChaos

The answer to this question is simple, just put INTPs in charge of creating the school curriculum, you know, instead of those who have the ability to achieve good jobs high up in the education system, but when it actually comes to deciding the fundamentals of what and how children should be taught, simply pick and choose what children need to know, then ignore the reasons knowledge is remembered and stored for long term use.

If it was me, my first plan of action would be to perform reseach into these fields to ensure teachers were not wasting there time teaching things that is going in one ear and out the other!


----------



## thetruehell

My recipe is

Scientific exhibitions all the year (at least 4 times).
Scientific contests for the general public.
Book store in every street.
Make special TV-news for the latest scientific discoveries.
Make science (special Math) more fun and more colorful.


----------



## Thorndrop

Some people are naturally drawn towards science anyway. Why does everybody need to be interested in it? Wheras yes, I find it incredibly fascinating to learn about physics, I accept that a lot of people think it's not enjoyable. I like it because it explains things about the world, not because it's 'fun' and immediately gratifying.


----------



## bowieownsmysoul

experiment on celebrities? TV Show Idea: Who wants to Clone Kim Kardashian?


----------



## nevermore

bowieownsmysoul said:


> experiment on celebrities? TV Show Idea: Who wants to Clone Kim Kardashian?


_Please_ delete that post before any lurking TV producers get any ideas... :dry:


----------



## NotSoRighteousRob

genetic manipulation on the subatomic level, or an ethnic cleansing of the scientific kind


----------



## BIOS

It all depends on math, when mathematics is made easy and fun there will also be more scientists. And to make math more accessible for the big crowd it needs to lose it's abstract and rigorous nature (atleast in high school and lower). The idea's and concepts have to be taught in a more intuitive, creative and visual way. So I mean without the semi-unreadable gibberish in math symbols.
I do know a lot of mathematicians would be horrified by this thought but it's the way most people can grasp it.


----------



## 22575

BIOS said:


> It all depends on math, when mathematics is made easy and fun there will also be more scientists. And to make math more accessible for the big crowd it needs to lose it's abstract and rigorous nature (atleast in high school and lower). The idea's and concepts have to be taught in a more intuitive, creative and visual way. So I mean without the semi-unreadable gibberish in math symbols.
> I do know a lot of mathematicians would be horrified by this thought but it's the way most people can grasp it.


Perhaps the problem is that people are scared of learning. They view subjects like mathematics as these insurmountable walls that can only be scaled by god-like personas such as Einstein.


----------



## BIOS

unsung truth said:


> Perhaps the problem is that people are scared of learning. They view subjects like mathematics as these insurmountable walls that can only be scaled by god-like personas such as Einstein.


Yeah, but I don't think an unwillingness to learn is the problem. It's more the equations being slammed in the face that is unmotivating. If you put a strong intuitive idea behind the equations and applie them in the immediate environment it will stick. Ofcourse I realise that's very hard to do, perhaps even impossible with many advanced concepts.


----------



## 22575

BIOS said:


> Yeah, but I don't think an unwillingness to learn is the problem. It's more the equations being slammed in the face that is unmotivating. If you put a strong intuitive idea behind the equations and applie them in the immediate environment it will stick. Ofcourse I realise that's very hard to do, perhaps even impossible with many advanced concepts.


"intuitive" has many different meanings based on who you're talking to. From personal experience I've noticed that people's minds are organized very differently in regards to math. There are many people (quite a lot of teachers/professors) who can just start from a couple of equations and mechanically bang out an equation without really knowing where they're going, and there are plenty of students who think this way as well. For me, I prefer to have an outline of where an argument is going and then fill in the details, otherwise I just get lost. So with teachers who don't provide such an outline I watch and wait til the end when I can summarize/organize the main principles and reconstruct the argument.

I think motivation is a large factor. Generally speaking, an array of resources is provided ranging from teachers, textbooks, tutors, classmates, and open academic material online. If one is unsuitable then it can usually be supplemented with another. 

addendum: a number of concepts in mathematics are inevitably generalized into abstraction and do not have an over-arching "real-world" way of thinking about them (try visualizing 5 dimensions).


----------



## Word Dispenser

Change the institution in which the children are taught, and you change the way they look at learning.

Categorizing children into groups based upon age, rank and file is old and boring. Who wants to learn when they're forced to sit, and told what to know instead of asking what they'd like to know? Kids are naturally curious. They want to learn. But, then they're all put into a mold that not every child is suited to.

Children should _not_ be taught by generalized educators who have some knowledge in some areas, and expert knowledge in others.

They should be expert enthusiasts in their fields, who know and want to work with children. You wanna teach a kid math? Get somebody who loves math, is good at it, and loves kids.

The environment should be open, and children should get to discuss things, ask questions, and learn from each other. And not just get told.


----------



## Benja

Public laboratories.

Like a library, you could just walk in and use or check out expensive experimental equipment.

Science isn't popular because it's too inaccessible, most people need to see that a theory is true through their own hands-on experimentation, they can't just read textbooks about it, they need to make it relevant to their real life.

It doesn't help that all the fun science is illegal too, why can't I make explosives from scratch, I'm a responsible citizen? :tongue:


----------



## CodeGuru

Actually, a man named Pythagoras has done that exact same thing, but with math. The wonders they have discovered at the time made it a golden age of math, you can imagine how many hairs were pulled when they discovered things like irrational numbers and similar concepts.

/watch?v=HlBA9_3zj9w

The more you know.


----------



## CoopV

Glorify nerds and scientists. Not reality show stars, sports stars, and actors.


----------



## 22575

all of the above

oh and new cosmos:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/05/a...osmos-with-seth-macfarlane-as-a-producer.html


----------



## MyName

Nudity and Violence


----------



## skycloud86

MyName said:


> Nudity and Violence


Try not to spam my thread with useless crap and go back to the Spam section, please. I know society is obsessed with those two things, but Science shouldn't have to conform to society.


----------



## KingFrog

Well, first off, math and science is made too boring in our schools.
I was lucky enough to go to both a private and a public school in my school years, and I have to say public schools are boring.

I was so lucky in the private school I went to because I had a teacher who actually cared and made science fun. She did fun experiments and made us think outside the box. Along with competitive quizzes and possible extra credit every week by bringing in and presenting news or articles about breaking edge science in which we would have to present and explain in front of the class.

However, on a mass scale, I don't see how we could all get teachers like that.


----------



## 22575

KingFrog said:


> Well, first off, math and science is made too boring in our schools.
> I was lucky enough to go to both a private and a public school in my school years, and I have to say public schools are boring.
> 
> I was so lucky in the private school I went to because I had a teacher who actually cared and made science fun. She did fun experiments and made us think outside the box. Along with competitive quizzes and possible extra credit every week by bringing in and presenting news or articles about breaking edge science in which we would have to present and explain in front of the class.
> 
> However, on a mass scale, I don't see how we could all get teachers like that.


If teachers were given better pay and if American society were rewired to view it as a respectable career then you wouldn't have to hire out of the uninspired bottom third of college graduates to teach the next generation. It's absolutely pitiful.

addendum: the whole "nerd" bashing aspect of such a culture very much plays into this as well... One of the few reasons America can keep afloat in spite of this is by intellectual immigrants coming in without such a negative view of skilled work/intellectualism


----------



## saturnne

Shows like Grey's Anatomy definitely works, it seems. Scientists have a soul, maybe (haha) even a life! 'Kay, doctors/surgeons may not necessarily be scientists, but they're geeks, and medicine can't function without science.


----------



## letmeknowwhenitworks

I think part of the aversion towards science stems from propagated stereotypes, which in turn comes from a misunderstanding of what science is and attempts to do. Science "happens" behind closed doors. Concepts of research are not widely understood by the general populace if people are diverging away from science or not well-versed in the differences in terminology between what scientists use and what society uses. 
I remember reading a published article last year about how children are essentially "mini-scientists". The skills required to succeed in this field are all innate skills that we have used early on in life to learn about the world and our surroundings. As we grow, these skills' development requires the proper environment and positive reinforcement that encourage people to venture out and critically think about things. In my opinion, while targeting the younger generation is a key move to effectively correct the misconceptions about science, we can't ignore the older generation (parents, teachers, etc.) as they will have a significant contribution to the developing perceptions. I think it would be a lot better if we introduced the logic behind and the application of the scientific method before introducing facts from various disciplines for students to memorize. The early on people grasp what science is attempting to do and also learning the skills/terminology required, the better they understand how to interpret the loads of information presented. We should explain the various factors that do influence research (politics, religion, economy, etc.), and introduce a better way to detect and deal with such cases instead of dubbing the whole field "a conspiracy". Critical thinking is key.


----------



## Nowhere Man

You can't force people to magically become interested in things they're genuinely not interested in. However, I can definitely think of a multitude of reasons as to why science isn't exactly popular:

- Modern Western society. We live in a culture that values instant gratification and constant stimulation over patience and analytical thinking. Consumption and gluttony over production and discovery. Stereotypes and black and white thinking over research and understanding. So naturally, the sciences don't normally attract the attention of the masses.

- Religion. Religion became outdated the moment science and rationality took over our intellectual zeitgeist, yet we still cling to religion and "God" as our guiding light (particularly in the US), and we snicker like children at evolution and natural selection, as our elders taught us that the gradual adaptation of species is absolutely laughable in comparison to the far more reasonable and enlightening theory of "God did it." Thus, science in general is failing to garner mainstream popularity in the US.

- Science doesn't care about being popular. In the ongoing search for understanding, being "cool" and "hip" becomes negligible, and scientists don't feel much need to strive for popularity. As a result, science hasn't achieved much mainstream popularity, barring a stunning discovery, invention or breakthrough.

Of course, science _is _somewhat popular in certain circles and can even be considered "cool". I don't care too much for that though. Neil DeGrasse Tyson is an astrophysicist, not a celebrity or rock star.


----------



## Stelmaria

The reason why science is not as popular as it could be is because much of the public feels _disconnected_ from the process of science. 

Science to many people is simply something that other people with other goals and interests (and other personal qualities) do.

Education about science alone won't solve this. I dare say education of people on the logic of science (which in practise is probably closest to Bayesian inference) is just as likely to confuse/alienate as it is to improve inclusiveness.

In terms of religion, rather than merely alienating those with strong religious beliefs, it needs to be shown that science can be complementary to religion, since it asks different questions. It is a simple argument: Unless God is deliberately fooling us, what we see and measure is what God created. Religion itself is popular precisely because it creates inclusiveness. (at least on the community scale).

When people talk about examples of how the popularity of science is increased they tend to mention: National scientific programmes such as the space programme and well known science communicators.
What do these have in common? They increase inclusiveness. When we see scientists doing things that capture our imagination and national identity then we are more likely to feel included. Likewise, if we see scientists as real people asking real questions that are relevant to us, then we are more likely to relate to them and feel connected with the process.

I therefore feel that the question should be rephrased towards a question along the lines of, how do we increase involvement and feelings of inclusiveness towards the practise of science in society.


----------



## MNiS

I think a lot of the reason Science isn't as prominent as it should be is due to poor education. Children aren't taught to become excited by science, nor are they taught how it's valuable and relevant to everyday life. There's also the monetary aspect of being involved in a scientific field. Why become a scientist when one could become a banker or businessman and earn more money. If creating a high net worth were somewhat devalued by society, I believe it would lure more of the best and brightest back into scientific fields.


----------



## Playful Proxy

The school system needs to show children the applications of science and what all you can do with it, not just pages of formulas and definitions to learn in a book. No one likes that. Show them that laser formula, then get them thinking on how to make their own laser. After they make lasers, show them hologram projection theory. We may get stable, reliable, and cheap holograms in my lifetime if we keep at it. 

We neglect what science can be used for and put emphasis on what has already been done and the formulas on how it was. We then fail to show WHY the formulas work the way they do. Teaching someone how to use a tool well and shoving tons of crappy tools in their face is quite different.


----------



## Cheeseumpuffs

Resurrect Carl Sagan and Richard Feynman. Let's keep Neil DeGrasse Tyson around, too.

It might sound kind of silly like this, but in a sense I'm actually serious. If there were more people who presented science in a manner that the public could understand then there would be more interest. Think Brian Cox.


----------



## Anonynony

What @Cheeseumpuffs & @Snow Leopard said. 
We need more people to explain science for the average person. A couple of young hot scientist(they exist somewhere! lol) & a father-figure, if you have those then you have the ingredients for aa show someone will watch. Some science shows try to be over dramatic(I was watching on with Machio Kaku(he's in everything though, isn't he?), a lot of it was in b&w with dramatic lighting, it was overwhelming the science) & some try to be not dramatic enough.
There needs to be new topics too. Sorry science channel, but I'm tired of watching 10 diffrent shows about the universe that all say pretty much the same thing.
A lot of people I know that aren't the smartest or interested in science actually love those documentaries though.
Schools need to make science a gift, not a requirement(ok, it should be required, but it shouldn't feel like that)


----------



## Cheeseumpuffs

FigureSkater said:


> We need more people to explain science for the average person... There needs to be new topics too. Sorry science channel, but I'm tired of watching 10 diffrent shows about the universe that all say pretty much the same thing... Schools need to make science a gift, not a requirement(ok, it should be required, but it shouldn't feel like that)


This. 

I'm suddenly reminded of Mythbusters, also. They bring science and experiments to the people in a way that gets people really interested. However, on Mythbusters they tend to skate over the actual science of it and instead say, "If this, then this" without going over it. One episode I remember that did this was the Bus Jump episode. To get the scale they wanted they needed to do all sorts of math to compensate for gravity and the size of the bus and such so to do that Grant starts going crazy with a sharpie on the side of the bus, essentially covering the thing with equations. Now that's cool but there's a problem. They sped up the film, cut here and there, and had their voice guy talking over Grant. On a show that endorses science, you'd think that they would slow down and actually show the science getting worked out.

And in regards to the shows on the science channel, I agree that there should be more variation in subject matter. Yes, we all know that the universe was created with the big bang and then there were stars that exploded and infused gas clouds and then exploded again and eventually formed us. Neil DeGrasse Tyson has said it. Hell, Carl Sagan was saying that we were made of "star stuff" back in the 70s/80s. People don't need to know the same old stuff anymore. Let's get some shows to spend an hour or two explaining the Higgs boson, Higgs field, and all that stuff. My best understanding of the Higgs doesn't come from any kind of legitimate science education place. It comes from a couple other members of INTPforum who were talking about it. From reading the articles I gathered that the Higgs boson and Higgs field are in some way linked and that they somehow give particles mass.

It's problems like this that people don't care. Spend some time explaining the importance of the LHC. Explain what it does, how it does it, what it has accomplished, what these accomplishments could mean for the future and everything. One argument I've heard about the Higgs discovery is that it doesn't seem relevant and that it's "over-hyped" simply because it doesn't have any impact on their lives. People like practical applications of things. Give that to them. And if you can't at least make it as interesting as possible and then maybe people will get interested enough to find an application for science in day to day lives.

I mean, when Rutherford discovered that atoms had nuclei people didn't go crazy. People didn't think that it was all that important. Congratulations, you know a little more about how it's constructed, big woop, right? Without that discovery we wouldn't have nuclear power. We wouldn't have reactors and power plants to supply us with the electricity that we depend on.

Science is a big fucking deal.


----------



## Anonynony

Cheeseumpuffs said:


> This.
> 
> I'm suddenly reminded of Mythbusters, also. They bring science and experiments to the people in a way that gets people really interested. However, on Mythbusters they tend to skate over the actual science of it and instead say, "If this, then this" without going over it. One episode I remember that did this was the Bus Jump episode. To get the scale they wanted they needed to do all sorts of math to compensate for gravity and the size of the bus and such so to do that Grant starts going crazy with a sharpie on the side of the bus, essentially covering the thing with equations. Now that's cool but there's a problem. They sped up the film, cut here and there, and had their voice guy talking over Grant. On a show that endorses science, you'd think that they would slow down and actually show the science getting worked out.
> 
> And in regards to the shows on the science channel, I agree that there should be more variation in subject matter. Yes, we all know that the universe was created with the big bang and then there were stars that exploded and infused gas clouds and then exploded again and eventually formed us. Neil DeGrasse Tyson has said it. Hell, Carl Sagan was saying that we were made of "star stuff" back in the 70s/80s. People don't need to know the same old stuff anymore. Let's get some shows to spend an hour or two explaining the Higgs boson, Higgs field, and all that stuff. My best understanding of the Higgs doesn't come from any kind of legitimate science education place. It comes from a couple other members of INTPforum who were talking about it. From reading the articles I gathered that the Higgs boson and Higgs field are in some way linked and that they somehow give particles mass.
> 
> It's problems like this that people don't care. Spend some time explaining the importance of the LHC. Explain what it does, how it does it, what it has accomplished, what these accomplishments could mean for the future and everything. One argument I've heard about the Higgs discovery is that it doesn't seem relevant and that it's "over-hyped" simply because it doesn't have any impact on their lives. People like practical applications of things. Give that to them. And if you can't at least make it as interesting as possible and then maybe people will get interested enough to find an application for science in day to day lives.
> 
> I mean, when Rutherford discovered that atoms had nuclei people didn't go crazy. People didn't think that it was all that important. Congratulations, you know a little more about how it's constructed, big woop, right? Without that discovery we wouldn't have nuclear power. We wouldn't have reactors and power plants to supply us with the electricity that we depend on.
> 
> Science is a big fucking deal.


Agreed!

If we have average people that understand the science, they know the best way to explain it to the common people & they should be the ones doing it! lol. The people on Myth Busters could explain a complecated algorithm so everyone can understand, but a lot of people only watch it for the explosions & the producers know that


----------



## Cheeseumpuffs

Yeah, that bums me out. I think it's kind of sad when I can turn to my dogs (or whoever happens to be near me at the time) and explain to them the basic physics theories behind a Mythbusters experiment in a way that makes it seem like I know more about what's actually going on than they do. I've taken two years of high school physics (plus some independent research and such on my own, I guess). I shouldn't be able to sound more knowledgeable than the people who have their own show dedicated to science.


----------



## nonnaci

Too much noise in most information streams already. Maybe the solution is in a greater awareness and accessibility to higher quality content. Just as one can't google a term that one doesn't know, one has to rely on "link chasing", recommendation systems, or just plain word of mouth to expand one's web of information. This is in competition with opportunity costs generated by "noise" in our information systems constituting the lionshare of say cable TV and even the internetz.

i.e. Get people to read books again (published or peer reviewed stuff) if you want quality. Buy an e-reader for accessibility. Increase awareness via shifting the cultural norms (at least in the US) via fixing education system (ha).


----------



## Imperator

The mainstream has yet to be introduced to Michio Kaku.


----------



## nonnaci

Imperator said:


> The mainstream has yet to be introduced to Michio Kaku.


I'd cry for joy if science can go mainstream. Unfortunately, the SNR these days is only going down.


----------



## Tristan427

If we destroy MTV and kill the people responsible to make sure they never do that again, I'm sure the average IQ would rise within a few years. Thus, science becomes more popular.


----------



## staticmud

I'm a member of my high school's (highly popular) _F.I.R.S.T. _Robotics Team. One of the main goals of _F.I.R.S.T. _is to popularize and promote STEM. My team isn't very good, but some of the best teams have been very affective at influencing their communities and all teams end up sending a lot of kids into STEM careers.
And we get to build robots and play games with them. roud:


----------



## CataclysmSolace

Imperator said:


> The mainstream has yet to be introduced to Michio Kaku.


I know what you mean. Neil deGrasse Tyson also to add to the list. Both are personal heroes of mine. =)


----------



## FlatteringlyDerisive

To simply put, Sam Harris + Daniel Dennett + Richard Dawkins + Christopher Hitchens + enlightenment FTW!!!


----------



## Azure_Sky

I think to get people interested in science, some people have to see how it is significant in their lives. For others, they need to understand that science isn't out to them. Science is truths found in observations, patterns and testing. The great thing about science is that findings are not set in stone. Things are always being challenged and there are always new discovers that help guide us towards the truth.


----------



## fihe

Make it fun! kids are naturally curious and enjoy learning how things work. if high school science classes had more interactive labs, I think that would help hold the students' interest.I

I used to want to be a scientist, then AP Biology killed my interest because there was too much reading for my little pea brain to keep up with. now I wish I had studied science in college because then I probably would have a job now that uses my college education.


----------



## Michael Nihil

Change its name to religion and attach a doctrine to it which propagates false hope.


----------



## pepsivanilla93

I'd have to say religion is up there. The fact that these children, as Richard Dawkins put it, "children of [insert religion] parents", are brought up to their knowledge that what is written in these canons is the only truth. If children were to be brought up with unbiased views and given their choice about what is to them, correct and incorrect, I would have to say science would out-win all religions on the basis that the evidence is concrete. I have no idea about reality television and celebrities as I despise them both for a fictitious interpretation of 'living'. They're both quite redundant if you ask me, and I think reality tv is mind dulling, and celebrities, why in the world do people care about them? I wouldn't know where to start.


----------



## Hellfire

Teach science in a compelling way in primary school. They don't do so enough here.


----------



## DoIHavetohaveaUserName

I think how ever and what ever u do , it entirely depends on the INDIVIDUAL and his interests and HIS GRASPING CAPABILITIES !!!


----------



## zara1

Good Idea! 
*Short videos* will work on all over the internet 
desktops, mobile and tablets users!

For example: *Science of Stupid* do you know about this cool PRogramme???


----------



## aef8234

nuff said.


----------



## koalaroo

Honestly? Teach critical thinking skills earlier.


----------



## Eglis

I am new here so i don`t know how to speak like you people do but i will try to give a good answer  :
Science is something that you cant put inside people`s head. They will have the tendency of science from when they go in 1st grade. Plus scientists don`t need for people to love them or to be famous , I think that they just want to feed their knowledge with new information because what makes scientists create or discover something new is their inner self that cant tolerate that he don`t know something.


----------



## Simpson17866

I didn't even remember writing my flippant answer, but if I could write something more serious:

Don't focus on science as a list of facts (which it isn't), don't even focus on how science is a process for discovering facts (which it is), focus on how cool it is to be the first person on the planet to discover something :happy:


----------



## Acrylic

koalaroo said:


> Honestly? Teach critical thinking skills earlier.


That was something the Texas GOP came very close to banning lol. A few votes short.

The words directly from the bill "we oppose the teaching of high order thinking skills, critical thinking skills, and others that are simply a relabeling of outcome based education, which focus on behavior modifications and have the purpose of challening the student's fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority"


----------



## g_w

Despotic Ocelot said:


> That was something the Texas GOP came very close to banning lol. A few votes short.
> 
> The words directly from the bill "we oppose the teaching of high order thinking skills, critical thinking skills, and others that are simply a relabeling of outcome based education, which focus on behavior modifications and have the purpose of challening the student's fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority"


It depends on who is doing the teaching, and what their definitions are.

For the OP...Ban Smartphone possession until the age of 25; allow corporal punishment in schools including the use of stocks; and force the little brats to learn Latin and Ancient Greek beginning in third grade and plane geometry and algebra beginning in sixth grade.

From Dorothy L. Sayers, one of the first women to get a Masters' from Oxford (she finished classes in 1915...and took a First; but at that time, women were not awarded degrees. She was given her degree in 1920.)

https://www.scribd.com/doc/36325362/The-Lost-Tools-of-Learning


----------



## Acrylic

g_w said:


> It depends on who is doing the teaching, and what their definitions are.


The people who made the bill are fundamentalist Christians. That should tell you something about the intent with this lol. They also want the bible taught in science class.


----------



## g_w

Despotic Ocelot said:


> The people who made the bill are fundamentalist Christians. That should tell you something about the intent with this lol. They also want the bible taught in science class.


Well, it shows me that you're a bigot. Dorothy Sayers was a Christian; and the state of her education (as an English Lit major) was such that she based a murder mystery on the presence of a racemic mixture of an artificially synthesized toxin...back in the 1930's even before the mirror image atomic structure of the optically active carbon atoms had been deciphered by the Chemists.

What she recommended (since you obviously didn't read her piece, apparently intent on spreading prejudice) was that children be given ancient Latin and English; that they be taught the classical Trivium; and that they not be held back from mathematics, but rather, that mathematics other than rote memorization should *follow* chronologically after an introduction to formal logic.

You also appear to be spectacularly misinformed about the state of education in the US.

Back about 30 years ago, the US government commissioned a blue ribbon panel to look into the state of the education system. One of the conclusions of the report was "If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war."

That was *before* the current crop of Marxist snowflakes and social justice warriors completely infiltrated the educational establishment.

The following chestnut illustrates the decline in mathematics pretty well:

 Teaching Math in 1950:
 A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit?
 Teaching Math in 1960:
 A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or $80. What is his profit?
 Teaching Math in 1970:
 A logger exchanges a set "L" of lumber for a set "M" of money. The cardinality of set "M" is 100. Each element is worth one dollar. Make 100 dots representing the elements of the set "M." The set "C," the cost of production contains 20 fewer points than set "M." Represent the set "C" as subset of set "M" and answer the following question: What is the cardinality of the set "P" of profits?
 Teaching Math in 1980:
 A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20. Your assignment: Underline the number 20.
 Teaching Math in 1990:
 By cutting down beautiful forest trees, the logger makes $20. What do you think of this way of making a living? Topic for class participation after answering the question: How did the forest birds and squirrels "feel" as the logger cut down the trees? There are no wrong answers.


----------



## Acrylic

I didn't read anything past the words "For the OP", since I'm not the OP.

Your post to me said it depends on who is doing the teaching and what their definitions are. Which is getting into a whole separate topic that I wasn't even talking about, so I said "this bill was done by fundamentalist Christians" to make it easy for you to see why it was made. And I said the same people have been trying to get the bible in science class.

They're very out in the open with their intentions. They don't like the nature of school being one where you use 'critical thinking' since it threatens long held beliefs, and makes it possible for children to change those beliefs. They are fundamentalist Christian, so, put two and two together. These people have been trying to do crazy religious shit for years... Rick Perry is someone you may have heard of, he's the governor. That's what they do down there, they think the country was started as a 'Christian country', and they think there is no separation of church and state.


----------



## g_w

Despotic Ocelot said:


> I didn't read anything past the words "For the OP", since I'm not the OP.
> 
> Your post to me said it depends on who is doing the teaching and what their definitions are. Which is getting into a whole separate topic that I wasn't even talking about, so I said "this bill was done by fundamentalist Christians" to make it easy for you to see why it was made. And I said the same people have been trying to get the bible in science class.
> 
> They're very out in the open with their intentions. They don't like the nature of school being one where you use 'critical thinking' since it threatens long held beliefs, and makes it possible for children to change those beliefs. They are fundamentalist Christian, so, put two and two together. These people have been trying to do crazy religious shit for years... Rick Perry is someone you may have heard of, he's the governor. That's what they do down there, they think the country was started as a 'Christian country', and they think there is no separation of church and state.


You're incorrect on multiple grounds. First, the people against "critical thinking" do not believe "critical thinking" threatens their beliefs: what they think is that the words "critical thinking" have been tacked on to other items which are not actually critical thinking, but propaganda, or Gramscian marching through the institutions. Secondly, the object to top-down "command and control" education, emanating from DC, rather than local control.

Second, the country was not founded *as* a theocracy, but with a very strong permeation of Christianity into almost all facets of life, public and private. Even Benjamin Franklin, for example, the ol' libertine womanizer, woke every morning and addressed "Powerful Goodness" invoking its favor and guidance. John Adams explicitly said that "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Benjamin Rush went so far as to say, "The Bible, when not read in schools, is seldom read in any subsequent period of life… [T]he Bible… should be read in our schools in preference to all other books because it containsthe greatest portion of that kind of knowledge which is calculated to produce private and public happiness" and "I do not believe that the Constitution was the offspring of inspiration, but I am as satisfied that it is as much the work of a Divine Providence as any of the miracles recorded in the Old and New Testament." Or you have Joseph Story, an early Supreme Court justice appointed by Madison: "One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is that Christianity is a part of the Common Law. There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying at its foundations." John Jay, of Federalist Papers fame, said, "By conveying the Bible to people . . . we certainly do them a most interesting act of kindness. We thereby enable them to learn that man was originally created and placed in a state of happiness, but, becoming disobedient, was subjected to the degradation and evils which he and his posterity have since experienced. The Bible will also inform them that our gracious Creator has provided for us a Redeemer in whom all the nations of the earth should be blessed – that this Redeemer has made atonement “for the sins of the whole world,” and thereby reconciling the Divine justice with the Divine mercy, has opened a way for our redemption and salvation; and that these inestimable benefits are of the free gift and grace of God, not of our deserving, nor in our power to deserve. The Bible will also [encourage] them with many explicit and consoling assurances of the Divine mercy to our fallen race, and with repeated invitations to accept the offers of pardon and reconciliation. . . . They, therefore, who enlist in His service, have the highest encouragement to fulfill the du¬ties assigned to their respective stations; for most certain it is, that those of His followers who [participate in] His conquests will also participate in the transcendent glories and blessings of His Triumph."

The "Separation of Church and State" is a myth promulgated by Communists in the ACLU. The purported quote backing it up was from Thomas Jefferson, but this was in a private letter written to a Church in Danbury, after the Constitution was ratified; further, Jefferson himself wrote the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.


----------



## Acrylic

g_w said:


> You're incorrect on multiple grounds. First, the people against "critical thinking" do not believe "critical thinking" threatens their beliefs: what they think is that the words "critical thinking" have been tacked on to other items which are not actually critical thinking, but propaganda


I don't know how much you follow politics. But I do, and I'm telling you, they did this because they do not want students' beliefs in regards to religion 'challenged'. They don't want any belief the student has 'challenged'... that is why they tried to ban critical thinking, because critical thinking is about scrutinizing beliefs critically, questioning, etc.

Propaganda is the presentation of things in a way that does not allow critical thinking or questioning. That is what they wanted. The things they were pushing for were not only religious (to put the bible in science class), but also disallowed for the option of criticizing or questioning.

You cannot teach students in a religious way, since this country has a separation of church and state. Parents can teach their children religion, but when they go to school, since we do not have a state religion... they can expect to have their beliefs challenged. The replacement of religiosity with reason is one of the defining traits of the Age of Enlightenment, which is why we have a United States in the first place.



> Second, the country was not founded *as* a theocracy, but with a very strong permeation of Christianity into almost all facets of life, public and private.


That's not true. The Treaty of Tripoli, passed by the United States congress in 1797, states...

"*As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion*; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries"

That bill got a vote of 100 to 0. There was not a single no vote. This was barely 20 years after the constitution was signed.



> Even Benjamin Franklin, for example, the ol' libertine womanizer, woke every morning and addressed "Powerful Goodness" invoking its favor and guidance.


Benjamin Franklin was raised by puritan parents, but became deist as an adult. Deists believe in a god, but not religion or it's dogma, and they also don't believe in miracles or prophecies. Benjamin Franklin presented his beliefs in 1728 in a book called 'Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion', in which he famously said "lighthouses are more useful than churches". In 1758 he said "the way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason". In his 1771 autobiography, he said he was a deist.

The same goes for almost all the other founding fathers. They too were deists. Here's some of their quotes...

*Thomas Paine*: Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst.
*Thomas Jefferson:* Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man.
*James Madison:* During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been it's fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; servility in the laity; in both, superstition and persecution.


----------



## Acrylic

g_w said:


> The purported quote backing it up was from Thomas Jefferson, but this was in a private letter written to a Church in Danbury, after the Constitution was ratified; further, Jefferson himself wrote the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.


Purported? lol he did say it, it wasn't 'supposed' or 'hearsay'. That is what he said. He said... 

"The clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, *had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one*, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. *The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes* and they believe that *any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly*"

To the Danbury Baptists he said this, to assure them that the free exercise of religion would not be interfered with by the United States...

Gentlemen, the affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association give me the highest satisfaction. Believing with you that *religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God*; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that *the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions*, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building *a wall of separation between Church and State*"

In 1799 he said "I am for freedom of religion and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another"

In 1814 he said "Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law"

James Madison said "The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries"

And on and on it goes... they were all very much on the same page with this.


----------



## g_w

Despotic Ocelot said:


> I don't know how much you follow politics. But I do, and I'm telling you, they did this because they do not want students' beliefs in regards to religion 'challenged'. They don't want any belief the student has 'challenged'... that is why they tried to ban critical thinking, because critical thinking is about scrutinizing beliefs critically, questioning, etc.
> 
> Propaganda is the presentation of things in a way that does not allow critical thinking or questioning. That is what they wanted. The things they were pushing for were not only religious (to put the bible in science class), but also disallowed for the option of criticizing or questioning.
> 
> You cannot teach students in a religious way, since this country has a separation of church and state. Parents can teach their children religion, but when they go to school, since we do not have a state religion... they can expect to have their beliefs challenged. The replacement of religiosity with reason is one of the defining traits of the Age of Enlightenment, which is why we have a United States in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not true. The Treaty of Tripoli, passed by the United States congress in 1797, states...
> 
> "*As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion*; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries"
> 
> That bill got a vote of 100 to 0. There was not a single no vote. This was barely 20 years after the constitution was signed.
> 
> 
> 
> Benjamin Franklin was raised by puritan parents, but became deist as an adult. Deists believe in a god, but not religion or it's dogma, and they also don't believe in miracles or prophecies. Benjamin Franklin presented his beliefs in 1728 in a book called 'Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion', in which he famously said "lighthouses are more useful than churches". In 1758 he said "the way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason". In his 1771 autobiography, he said he was a deist.
> 
> The same goes for almost all the other founding fathers. They too were deists. Here's some of their quotes...
> 
> *Thomas Paine*: Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst.
> *Thomas Jefferson:* Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man.
> *James Madison:* During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been it's fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; servility in the laity; in both, superstition and persecution.


You are talking standard atheist boilerplate propaganda. If you bothered to read up on the war in Tripoli, it was occasioned by (surprise, surprise!) Muslims capturing Christians from sailing vessels as sea and taking them as slaves. Jefferson founded the US Navy in part to deal with them. You seem to forget, apparently, that Christianity and Islam had done a great deal of, ahem, "tangling", going as far back as, oh, Charles Martel and the Battle of Tours in the 700s; or even the Muslims attempting to overrun Vienna after the Pilgrims had landed at Plymouth Rock. Note the wording of the treaty, over which you fellate in vain. "The *GOVERNMENT* is not founded on the Christian religion -- that is, it is not an official state church in the vein of the Church of England, founded by Henry VIII to allow him to divorce wives who weren't giving him male heirs. Compare that to various Muslim countries, past and present, in which the government very much is explicitly intertwined with Islam : indeed, up to the present day with Dhimmi Carter and the Iranian Hostage Crisis, where the Ayatollah Khomeni had written a book, containing, among other things, proscriptions on selling to your neighbor, food animals which you have had sex with. (Mark Steyn wrote a delightful essay on that book).

Saying that the official structure of the government, does not encompass an official denomination church, is not at all the way the ACLU and others have been pushing the so-called "separation of Church and State", which has been used to remove voluntary grass-roots prayer from schools, and students failing assignments because of their own accord they chose devotional themes.

Your cherry-picking does not impress me. There are scads of atheist sites where you can find quotes taken out of context, exaggerated, or lied about; where many other quotes, show that the dominant (and practiced) mindset on an individual personal level, was in fact, Christianity.

Thomas Paine was a pamphleteer; he wrote "Common Sense" urging independence, but if you really knew politics you'd know that the colonists were fairly equally divided : 20-30% were Tories / loyalists; about 30% wanted independence; and about 30% were straddling. Incidentally, Paine went over to France where he got involved in the *Fwench* revolution, and was an enemy of Burke...both of which make his *philosophical* contributions to the new US government, hmm, suspect. Granted, Burke was not *directly* quoted in say, the Federalist papers; but for that matter, neither was Blackstone.

Thomas Jefferson was an odd duck. He had the famous quote about forever swearing enmity on the altar of Almighty God, internal enmity yada yada...on the other hand he had a number of quotes favorable, not to *institutionalized* Christianity, but personal attention to the teachings of Jesus himself:

"The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man"; or "I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to His doctrines in preference to all others[...];ascribing to himself every human excellence; and believing he never claimed any other" ... on the basis of this quote, I'd call Jefferson a heretic; in a similar position to (say) the Socians, or, perhaps, Apollinarians.

Your quote from Madison is out of context. The original source for this quote is from an essay "Memorial and Remonstrace against Religious Assessments" which is arguing against the church formally being *sponsored* financially by the state (cf. for example the Church of England), and was written to the Assembly of Virginia in 1785. 

The sentence before your quote reads: 

"Because experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation."

But the prior paragraph is even more damning to your propaganda. It reads:

Because the establishment proposed by the Bill is not requisite for the support of the Christian Religion. To say that it is, is a contradiction to the Christian Religion itself, for every page of it disavows a dependence on the powers of this world: it is a contradiction to fact; for it is known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them, and not only during the period of miraculous aid, but long after it had been left to its own evidence and the ordinary care of Providence.

Note the EXPLICIT acknowledgment of miraculous aid in the life of the Christian Church. These are not the words of a Deist.

And of course, there are scads of quotes, in both public and private writings, not only of the founders, but many of the surviving diaries, articles, and such, of the day, showing clearly the influence and place of Christianity throughout the lives of the early Americans.

....


----------



## LandOfTheSnakes

g_w said:


> The following chestnut illustrates the decline in mathematics pretty well:
> 
> Teaching Math in 1950:
> A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit?
> Teaching Math in 1960:
> A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or $80. What is his profit?
> Teaching Math in 1970:
> A logger exchanges a set "L" of lumber for a set "M" of money. The cardinality of set "M" is 100. Each element is worth one dollar. Make 100 dots representing the elements of the set "M." The set "C," the cost of production contains 20 fewer points than set "M." Represent the set "C" as subset of set "M" and answer the following question: What is the cardinality of the set "P" of profits?
> Teaching Math in 1980:
> A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20. Your assignment: Underline the number 20.
> Teaching Math in 1990:
> By cutting down beautiful forest trees, the logger makes $20. What do you think of this way of making a living? Topic for class participation after answering the question: How did the forest birds and squirrels "feel" as the logger cut down the trees? There are no wrong answers.


Well I guess we've found the definition of a hyperbole here.


----------



## Acrylic

11:21 pm, Wednesday: Starts reading longwinded, hammy, mountain of a post
9:00 pm Thursday: Finally finishes reading longwinded, hammy, mountain of a post

Ok g_w, ya got me... despite what is stated in the constitution, the Treaty of Tripoli, and many other occasions involving passages of a law... the United States is actually a country founded on Christianity. 

So we made some news in this thread. We're not actually a secular country. We're the Christian version of Iran and Saudi Arabia. We've done Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee a great disservice... they were laughed out of each of their presidential bids for their ridiculously over the top Christianity and how they'd implement it into law... but it looks like we laughed out what should be our Ayatollah. Our bad.

I hope despite this news, it doesn't make our standard of living decrease, since as we know, the least religious countries are the most prosperous, and the most religious, are the ones experiencing most of the problems and human rights and freedoms issues. Well, despite Christianity's bad reputation compiled over 2 thousand years of murder, persecution, superstition, more murder, and all kinds of fuckery... I'm sure THIS time they won't fuck it up, and will lead us into prosperity now that we are the Christian Iran. 

"Ok we've been really, really bad over 2 thousand years, but remove the wall between church and state and we promise we'll behave this time you guys... we promise!"

"Good news! Turns out we completely misinterpreted the founding fathers. There never was a separation between church and state. You're back in control, Christianity!"

(24 hours pass)

(wakes up in a dilapidated, totalitarian regime that once hosted a civilized 21st century nation)


----------



## Simpson17866

"I believe in God, but I detest theocracy.
For every Government consists of mere men and is, strictly viewed, a makeshift;
if it adds to its commands ‘Thus saith the Lord,’ it lies, and lies dangerously."

- CS Lewis

"I pledge allegiance to the flag
Of the United States of America
And to the Theocracy for which it stands
One Nation, under Christ, perfectly divisible
With Liberty and Justice for some"

- Christian Right

It's amazing the number of people who celebrate the second perspective while condemning the idea that government might have power over people's personal lives.


----------



## Denature

_Perhaps there a simply a smaller amount of people interested in devoting a long period of time to learn about the complicated world that is science._


----------



## shinedowness

Electra said:


> Stop testing cosmetics on animals!!!!!!!!


Helping vegetarians and vegans become scientists, too. Because they like to be aware about the world in their special ways.


----------



## Cacaia

I teach art and make sure to remind my students anytime it is relevant that Art is not just about "feel good" or "powerful statements"- Art is also about math and science. I bring in as much science related topics as I can think of (mixing colors as an "experiment" with test tubes and dyed vinegar+ baking soda, etc). I currently designed an animation unit for my first graders, where we talk about optical illusion and physics, etc. 
I worry a lot about children growing up less exposed to science in the US, and so I try to tap into my students' love of art, sneaking science and math as much as possible and getting them excited about the connections we find between the subjects.


----------



## AnneL

Cacaia said:


> I teach art and make sure to remind my students anytime it is relevant that Art is not just about "feel good" or "powerful statements"- Art is also about math and science. I bring in as much science related topics as I can think of (mixing colors as an "experiment" with test tubes and dyed vinegar+ baking soda, etc). I currently designed an animation unit for my first graders, where we talk about optical illusion and physics, etc.
> I worry a lot about children growing up less exposed to science in the US, and so I try to tap into my students' love of art, sneaking science and math as much as possible and getting them excited about the connections we find between the subjects.


That's a beautiful approach, and you are probably the only art person I know who actually is interested in connecting science with art. Most of the people I know avoid science completely.
-----------

All I can say is outreach, outreach, o u t r e a c h. I am a physics major, and with other physics students, we reach to the community as much as possible. We hold science events, astronomy nights, geeky and nerd talks; we do physics circus, we let kids do hands-on activities and experiments, and I think it has worked quite well. We have parents who have come and told us that their kids developed a huge interest in physics and science in general after coming to our events.
Now, the only thing that we need is that science professors continue to motivate students as much as possible. Not only showing the math and the problems, but showing the real-world applications and how amazing it can be (and how such simple, natural things can be described in a mathematical way in a very precise way) helps getting their interest.


----------



## dulcinea

I don't think you can. People choose to believe what they want to believe, even when there is overwhelming evidence proving them wrong. I mean, look at people who get their feelings hurt when a doctor tells them, based on objective criteria, that their weight is not healthy, or when people are faced with evidence that the gender they choose to identify as, isn't backed by any objective scientific data. (A person either has more testosterone than estrogen, on average, or more estrogen than testosterone. Some people have both sex parts, but most people have one or the other, or exhibit either the XX or XY chromosome and are thus biologically either male or female, despite how a person feels psychologically. People are not "assigned" genders. Gender is determined by an objective criteria, based on hormone levels and chromosomes. This is science, and people seem to be getting their feelings hurt by it).

Then there are people who choose to believe one study that vaccines lead to autism over the overwhelming amount of studies that it does not. First of all, how insulting to the autism community that you have moms who would rather their child get and potentiallly die from measles, roto-virus or some other disease than get Autism? Also, parents are more afraid of the heavy metals in a vaccine, which has maybe killed a tiny portion of people due to an allergic reaction, mainly, than a disease that kills a pretty significant portion of the people it infects. Also, knowing that there are no treatments for most viruses. Even a doctor can't get rid of a virus; all they can do is build up your immune system and hope for the best. 

And don't get me started on the flat earth society, that's showing an increasing amount of exposure on youtube and other sites. They're increasingly trying to sound scholarly, in the face of overwhelming mathematical, scientific, and just common sense being against them. Why on earth would any organization potentially bankrupt themselves for what gain???? So rand mcnally can sell globes??? I don't get it. 

The sad reality is that science will never be popular, because most people choose to be idiots.


----------



## Cal

By allowing individuals to eat pizza in the science lab!


----------



## The red spirit

By burning it with fire


----------



## Cacaia

AnneL said:


> That's a beautiful approach, and you are probably the only art person I know who actually is interested in connecting science with art. Most of the people I know avoid science completely.
> -----------
> 
> All I can say is outreach, outreach, o u t r e a c h. I am a physics major, and with other physics students, we reach to the community as much as possible. We hold science events, astronomy nights, geeky and nerd talks; we do physics circus, we let kids do hands-on activities and experiments, and I think it has worked quite well. We have parents who have come and told us that their kids developed a huge interest in physics and science in general after coming to our events.
> Now, the only thing that we need is that science professors continue to motivate students as much as possible. Not only showing the math and the problems, but showing the real-world applications and how amazing it can be (and how such simple, natural things can be described in a mathematical way in a very precise way) helps getting their interest.


AneL, that is quite awesome that you are involved in your community in such a way that inspires young ones! Keep up the good work!


----------



## Forest Nymph

As a science educator, people in my field believe that the key is a naturalist or ecological inquiry approach to science. In the 20th century "science" took on too much of a cold, godless, dystopian nerd-fest that was hell bent on "progress" at all costs. Hey guys, not everyone wants to live on a space ship, what with all of the potential psychological and physiological damage that stems from trips to space that we haven't managed to work out just yet (maybe because we're part of Earth's systems and we need to be part of our system, but that's another conversation that has both medical and environmental implications). 

Making science an approachable, natural discovery of daily living is extremely beneficial to the mental health of both children and adults, and studies have shown that children who are exposed to discovery or inquiry based learning in nature-based topics might be more likely to choose science or math careers around the 10th grade. They're also more likely to accept and act upon manmade climate change free of religious and other group bias. You can't care about what you don't know or understand.


----------



## Electra

Moar Dexters lab


----------



## dismountedhussar

There are at least two underlining problems: 
1. This would require critical thinking and questioning everything; lets be honest no one is interested in promoting that. 
2. Too many people are afraid of math.


----------



## Handsome Dyke

Forest Nymph said:


> As a science educator, people in my field believe that the key is a naturalist or ecological inquiry approach to science.


 This speaks to the reason I majored in Physics—wow was I disappointed. I know now that what I really wanted to study was once called naturalism—a physical science that is grounded in material reality, direct observation, and verifiable facts. All the metaphors, purely mathematical constructions, and meaningless abstractions that suffuse contemporary physics was disorienting, off-putting, and uninformative.


> In the 20th century "science" took on too much of a cold, godless, dystopian nerd-fest that was hell bent on "progress" at all costs. Hey guys, not everyone wants to live on a space ship, what with all of the potential psychological and physiological damage that stems from trips to space that we haven't managed to work out just yet


 Yes, this "progress" rhetoric, fiddling with nature in ways that are bound to have unforeseen negative consequences like children playing with guns, is something I hate about the direction science has taken.


----------



## Innocentia

P.S. I wrote it but I don't care if you read it, I mean wouldn't read it if I wasn't the writer or interested about what this person tend to say (and none knows me, so... I know the answer). It's just, I made a bit of work, I share it as an already lost reminder of what I think.

Here I come 

And there's a TL;DR toward the end.

So I will first state that, as always, I don't want to judge individuals, this doesn't interest me. Second, I'm not smarter than anyone, I try to reach everyone, I don't want to be elitist, so I hope for a charitable reading. And if you don't understand something, do not hesitate to ask, I will try my best to clarify anything I will write. And sorry for my style of writing, it's just... me...

Now, the question at hand, allow me to rephrase it, cause it contains a false dichotomy. It's easy to make that kind of error, it happens to everyone (including myself), so don't feel dumb about it (dichotomies are great tools, even if they have their limits). Basically, you can be interested in Science and worshipping celebrity and looking at reality television, that's not a contradiction. And all of this can be a fulfilling thing of interest, they just fulfill different things in your life. The second problem is the "in your opinion", I don't know for you all, but having the objective to make Science more interesting and not using it to answer the question, but asking for opinion is kinda strange, at least for me.

So the question I will answer will be: "What needs to be done in order to make Science more interestinge to society?". I'll answer this question under the political angle, it would be very interesting to answer this in the angle of psychology of education or social psychology, but I don't read that much litterature on it, so I'll let that to others. The hypothesis behind that is; you need first to be confronted to Science, if you want then to apply other methodology to get people more interested in Science. I will evoke this first frame to make things clearer: Science can answer on the best methods and on what is going on actually, you cannot use Science correctly to build clear cut political goals. This allow us to say that we don't mess with politics and Science (which we do, but then things are more complex, we'll come back to that later). Now the question is only about the methods, and not on how things are, but if you don't know where you come from, you'll probably fail to get where you want to go. So, how things are? Well, I won't use statistics, sorry, but I'll use some common knowledge. First, we never had that much technology all around us. Secondly, Science, and "hard" Science particularly, are protected institutions by the state and financed by the economical system, and there are jobs, so it's pretty safe to do those kind of studies (it's still hard and very competitive). Now the first obstacle are the paywalls set by the publishers which slow the diffusion of the articles towards poorer (more exploited) countries and people. The second obstacle are the sacralities (explicit and implicit langage with power) of the scientists which are difficult to understand by someone who has not those kind of knowledge, poorer people are less likely to get those knowledges too (it's part of the competition, the inequalities). The third obstacle is the technology needed to be able to use Science in a more everyday life, and again the poorer countries feel this obstacle more (Note that the social sciences and psychology need less technologies, and the application is easier in a everyday life). The first obstacle is easy to get through it (SciHub or ArXiv) or to formulate a political solution, just do not allow the publishers to gain money from the scientists, scholars, and people in general, and end the competition between publishers (so a big world wide bank which publish every article after being checked by peers freely). The second obstacle, we get ride of it through vulgarisation in school, we lack better vulgarisation in the current sciences, and we lack sociology and psychology, and others, which is a shame. Again, it's easy to formulate a political solution, but it's harder to realise it, but we can do it. We need to enlist members of scientific skepticism (not the skeptics of youtube gaming if you wondered ^^), they are the political movement which works for that (even if sometimes they say they aren't political, they're pretty good fellows anyway) (Edit: there's the open science movement too, thanks to a bud for this addendum). The third obstacle is the hardest, cause we need equal redistribution of power, money and knowledge throughout the society, which asks for a far more democratic society. (Even if the social sciences and psychology need less technology, we need to redistribute knowledge anyway) Note that the solutions, and the observations, aren't scientific based for now (well I'll still defend the dynamics behind with Science, but the formulation and the methods to get to them may be very diverse and I didn't back that up with Science), it's just kind of common knowledge, and basic leftist political response to the problem at hand. There may be more obstacles than cited here but they are the most notable political ones, and the solutions may vary in function of your political beliefs.

Now the good news, we will arrive to a society where everyone are confronted to all the Science in their everyday life, whatever we try to do, unless humanity is lost in the way. The bad news are that our society will be as violent as now (or more) till we come to that. To justify those assertions, I will use political anthropology from Georges Balandier and Alexandre Duclos, but first I'll need to explain what is Science, how it has been formed, and for that I'll use comparative anthropology from Bruno Latour (I'm not a fan of anthropology, or am I? ^^). Science is basically (this definition is kind of the actual with an added social context) a constant will to report to the common in the most rigourous way what we experiment. So it's empirical, social and political, and tend to make epistemology better too. A will, so a political goal, which is linked to the common, so it's social and cooperative (there is competition too, never one without the other), and the experimentation is empiricism in it's purest form. Every societies have done that, just to a more or lesser degree. Now why have our actual societies made so much scientific progress. Because, as Bruno Latour has observed, that at the foundation of modernity, there is a separation between God, the governement and nature (around the times of Hobbes and Boyle). We got ride of the godly laws, and Science can be made without ideologic and religious (basically politics, and... politics) bias coming from the social, and with a better epistemology too. This is the modern constitution which allows the proliferation of technologies, the modern state and capitalism. Now this constitution is unachievable at it's fullest, cause of the very definition of Science which link nature and society, but it allows us to get so much power on humans and nature alike, that's it has been embraced as the Enlightement of the human specie, thinking that everything will get better from now on (the myth of modern progress), cause we seem to have a solution to every problems, which we haven't -> climate change.

The first reason we fail to resolve this problematic in the current political organisations, is because we tend to think that technology will save us all, but our societies are very dependent of this, the modern state is built mostly on technology (administration, weapons, resources extractions, hobby, etc.), which is the cause of climate change. You cannot use the poison as a remede. (Unless you use it as a vaccine, which we do not.) The second reason it seems to work so well, is that the modernists love to purify everything with no middle ground, by building opposed dichotomies, nature/society, male/female, just/unjust, true/false, etc. Now some of them are mostly right, but when a mix of both appear it's chaos, so usually they will either hide it from their Science or force them in one of the two categories, which have been defined by Science if they could. For example, technology, is it nature or society based? Well both, but lot of people tend to see through the eyes of Science, not the social consequences of this or that technology. And the modernists tend to define technology as neutral like the nature, or due to the knowledge of it (like if building the knowledge of nature should be neutral), while you need, in fact, to formulate a goal for the technology, a political one, so people will want to use it, but that the modernists don't want to hear. It would make them responsible of the atomic bombs, Tchernobyl and all the technologies that China use to control it's own people. The proposition of Bruno Latour is to build a new constitution, a non-modern one, which would resolve the problem of the modern one, which is to link (again) nature and society, and good news we even have Science for both of them (don't even think to defend the idea that there is a scientific based dichotomy between "hard" Science and the "soft" science, or you are a modernist and I'll bite you ^^), we just need to combine them. Now don't get me wrong, the separation of nature and society, allowed us to build Science to the level we are now, we need to keep that, and not to destroy everything, or even anything, of what modernity builded. So it's not a coming back to the old days, it's to stop putting a blindfold on the mix between Science and politics, nature and society, which is where lie the core of the developpement of technologies that we know now. You could say, we shouldn't mix them, as a political goal. But we do not at the moment, and we never did, and you would need to get ride entirely of humans in the observation of nature, which looks very likely to be a dead end, if you wanted to get people interested in Science anyway. So the modernity has, at its political core, technology, which is a mix of politics and Science. It's the core of the attribution of status (remember, administration, it's a powerful technology we tend to forget, that at the times of kings, queens and emperors it was very limited, no centralised organisation without scripture) inside the hierarchies which form our society, so either you have a more vertical one (which is current state we live in, richest holding most of them, and the rights on them) or a more horizontal one (communism, socialism, anarchism etc.) (notice the *more*, it's never totally vertical or horizontal). Notice that the question would want more the later answer than the former, just more, not full communism necessarly.

Now wouldn't it be good if we could use Science to know where we are going? Well let's do it . In political anthropology, it has been observed that every societies, even the ones we deemed without political organisation (which turned out, they have all a political organisation), evolve or progress, whatever their organisations and their sacralities. By progress, we mean something very specific, not the technological or progress in the acquisition of rights. We are used to speak about political and dynamic space-time, in which we will find an internal organisation, an external organisation, sacrilities and ambiguities. The last one is where reside progress. The thing is that a society tend to treat any hierarchies as unjust, if the society live long enough. And even if the society doesn't decide that a hierarchy is unjust, people tend to "cheat" to gain more power, and as such make the access to a higher place in the hierarchy temporarly unjust to the eyes of somebody. Now let's take an exemple, before, women could not be scientist, because the society decided that they were not worthy, and shouldn't go to school long enough to get such a place. It turns out, that with some help of a father or a husband, a woman could eventually go to school and then in a university, and not only that, they were as capable as men to get the job done. But imagine how some men could feel about that girl "needing" that much support and getting the same job as them, when they had to struggle without, sometimes, the support of their entourage, some of them definitely felt cheated. This happen all the time, in every societies, no exception, for every hierarchies, and even in India, you just needed to leave your village, far away as you could, and asks to be treated as a higher cast you were born, it's not garanted but, it can work, and if it work, then it shows that the hierarchy was unjust. The hierarchy was just realising itself (they all do that). The idea is this, every hierarchies hold an ambiguity, and unless you put everyone and everything on an equal footage, you can not be sure, that the hierarchy is just. Every social experiment will be biased, because some people were not given the chance to prove their worth. Now you may think of all the people you have given a chance to act more responsibly, and it failed, and say maybe that it's not worth the effort to allow all those people to be able to get a higher place in society. But then, you don't want people to get more interested in Science, which is the exact same thing as giving the opportunity to those people to have power on their life (or at least a start), better to be coherent ^^.

But things don't stop there, cause I didn't explain why we will, whatever we choose to do, have more and more people smashing down every hierarchies which are obstacles for having access to Science. Well, because if you want to stop people to get more easy way to go higher in the hierarchy, you need to control the people so they don't cheat and that they stay at the place they belong, basically control and violence. But the problem is still not solved, cause you can always expect to have someone who will find a way to get across what you decided as a just hierarchy. So you will need to make segregation, so they will never be in touch with someone of a higher place, without any relation between them, it becomes impossible for one to even imagine to get out of where they are. And finally, if there's is a memory that it was, at a time, possible to get somewhere else in the hierarchy or there were other kind of hierarchies, you need to erase it and the history of the formation of the very same society you live in. Basically, it's a lot effort, probably far more than letting people or even helping them, to get across hierarchies. But it's what fascism want to do, and Staline, and Mao, and every reactionaries you get to meet. But you may wonder why then hierarchies build themself if we are due to end them all. Well, the reason behind a hierarchy is to achieve control on something or someone to gain more power and win the competition. But once you won the competition you need to justify this hierarchy if you want to keep your place, so you'll need either to convince everyone that the hierarchy is just, and religion and nature are good tools (but as just said before, it is intended to fail), or you need to find a new competitor, till you beated everything and everyone, but you're then back to justify the hierarchy the society is in (you could invent an imaginary enemy, but it doesn't last). Isn't it what we've done towards nature? We gained so much control that the kings and queens became obsolete, the nature was becoming ours, we just needed to control the other countries, so we colonized and some countries had to take or keep an emperor to be able to go to war. All the Napoleons, the dictators, would they loose or win the war, not much time after, they were thrown out, or insurrection was growing. After the 1st world war, Germany and Russia did a revolution, people from all over the worlds now knows that those ultra vertical power are unjust, only if they're convinced that they need them to fight an enemy, then people submissed, or the lack of power. By sharing knowledge we tend to be more and more cooperative and to lose taste in competition between us. Now that climate change is coming, you have again the need to compete against nature, and here come back the reactionaries with their religions, or eugenics, or the idea that competition is in our nature, human nature they claim, again it's a self-realising hierarchic mechanism. Now you could decide to choose the middle ground, but then you just slow down the progress (not the modern one, this one accelerate cause it's the current hegemonious order), and always keep a door open to a reactionary movement (which kill a lot and are doomed to fail either by being stopped by others, or because they would need to kill every suspicious persons in their society like Staline, ultimately destroying their own organisation like shown before), but maybe you think it's better that way, I won't argue with you on that matter, not today at least. But by allowing even a slow progression and the contestation of hierarchies, your society tend to reduce more and more the verticallity of the different hierarchies which form the society. So every society are intended to progress, in the sense we use in political anthropology, unless humanity dies along the way, but you don't want that. Or do you? ^^

TL;DR If you want to have more people interested in Science, then you need to ease the way to be confronted to every Science. By vulgarisation and by lowering down every obstacles like the inequalities and give far more possibilities to use Science in your everyday life (the social sciences and psychology need nearly nothing to apply, you just need to teach them at school). And all that can by justified by Science.

In conclusion, I don't really want to give a clear answer to the best way to get people more interested in Science, I prefer to tell what we can expect to achieve. And by this mean, I give you a lot of freedom on which resources to use to build your own methods, preferably based on Science. The only thing I will ask is to be careful to the political consequences of your method by using the different critical analysis I gave you, that's it.

So here I end my speech, it may looks very subjective, but actually there are thousands of observations of different societies to back that up, and we failed to see anything that would not go along those lines. So basically there are no debate unless new researches in sociology or in political anthropology are made which would contradict this theory, but I would be glad to read and learn about other academic articles and books which you could link to the subject. Thanks for your oh so long attention, I sincerly hope you get something positive from it. I may have missed some stuff, so again, don't hesitate to ask for a clarification, or a deeper explanation.

Bibliography: _We have never been modern_ from Bruno Latour and _Political anthropology_ from Georges Balandier
French only source: The Youtube channel of a political anthropologist and a professor at an university of Paris: Alexandre Duclos (I could work on some traduction if you really want it, but cannot promise anything)


----------



## Handsome Dyke

skycloud86 said:


> What, in your opinion, needs to be done in order to make Science more interesting to society in general? How can we attract people away from brainless reality television and worshipping celebrity, and towards more fulfilling subjects like Science?


 I don't see a reason to do this. Maybe those uninterested people don't find studying or reading about science fulfilling. And social things like "worshipping celebrities" are part of a totally different realm than science, so one can't necessarily replace the other. Seems like this question is about changing people's personalities. It won't happen. 

Increasing the social value of truth and engagement with physical reality/nature may increase the popularity of science as a side effect, but promoting science for its own sake...why? People who value science for its own sake also present problems.


----------



## Free Man

> What, in your opinion, needs to be done in order to make Science more interesting to society in general? How can we attract people away from brainless reality television and worshipping celebrity, and towards more fulfilling subjects like Science?


The solutions are not conceptually complicated at all, but none of them will be implemented under the current power paradigm — given who the architects and progenitors of said paradigm actually are. 

Here are a handful of solutions for the morbidly curious: 
* *





1. Actively discourage the oversimplification of scientific concepts used to pander to the masses, as well as the overall dumbing down, trivialization, or bastardization of terminology. A couple of examples: Not reminding or informing others about the correct distinction between a scientific hypothesis and a scientific theory. 2. Commercializing scientific study and practice by bastardizing it into pants-on-head expressions, such as "You're not sciencing correctly!" or "I only do science...periodically  "

2. Cease the pandering to women and racial minorities within a given country. Those truly interested in scientific pursuits don't need to be babied and pushed into it. This really goes for pursuing any higher learning altogether, but it's been bastardized in general to no longer carry the weight it once held. The study of the sciences and other forms of higher learning used to be reserved for those who had a burning passion to peer into the realms of the esoteric mysteries of the world. Now they've mostly been reduced to commercialized money-making schemes for colleges and universities to train a new kind of workforce that's going to make itself obsolete in a matter of decades once machines replace most of the jobs they sacrificed so much time and money to obtain. 

3. Remove the "scientist celebrities" and wannabe scientists (yes, I'm looking at you, Bill Nye) altogether. They serve only to dumb down concepts and pander to the childish wonder of those not suited to be involved in the first place. This might sound counter productive, but it would work wonders to restore the mysterious and almost occult-like reputation that the sciences once held. Instead, societies would do better to replace those scientist celebrities with high quality science magazines, better written and directed documentaries, and so forth. The childish and "trendy" presentation of the sciences in general has, through repeated abrasions, worn off the once pristine veneer of exclusiveness it once held. When fields of study that are meant to be taken seriously are repackaged, simplified, and shoved in the faces of the layman, how could you expect any outcome other than complete, artificial disillusionment with what once used to be a highly respected and exclusive branch of human inquiry? 

4. Remove political agendas and politically slanted funding from the sciences. Needless to say, this varies from branch to branch. You will inevitably see less of it in mathematics (admittedly not a science, but related), chemistry, and physics. However, on a large enough scale, even physics and chemistry can be twisted to serve a political agenda, most notably the concept of climate change, formerly known as "global warming" before the term became too inconvenient to those who were funding that side of the research. I don't personally know definitively one way or the other if humans are having any significant impact on the climate, but there's really no way anyone in the know can trust a system as corrupt as the one that currently restricts the pursuit of sincere scientific inquiry with do or die ultimatums about what results need to be produced in order to get funding in a given venture and field of study.


----------



## 74893H

Woah, this thread was posted in 2011. The world was a pretty different place back then. Perspective of science has changed a lot in America especially I'd imagine, probably less so here in the UK where we aren't so religious.

I don't think we should necessarily condition people into being more interested in science, if it's not for them then it's not for them. These sorts of things should be left to occur naturally. I can't stand reality TV and celebrity worship but if that's what makes them happy then we should let them do their thing, with maybe a look of stern disapproval on our faces. Looking down on these people because they have "less intelligent" interests isn't the way to be.

There will always be people into science regardless of how many people there are who aren't, and it's these people with the natural passion for it that we should rely on to advance our knowledge.


----------



## PiT

Fulfilling subjects that require serious reflection struggle against more puerile interests. Seeking easy gratification is a natural tendency, and the culture facilitated by mass media makes that gratification all the easier. A lot of science popularization has had the effect of making it less fulfilling and seem more like random cool stuff. It also facilitates the current proliferation of tech scams. Any topic that requires time, study, and reflection will naturally struggle to gather interest. Society should aim to promote that interest through science education initiatives, but it faces a headwind that will only get stronger as time goes on.


----------



## Forest Nymph

As a college graduate I have decided we don't need more "interest in science." On this website I've seen downright ignorance and fascination with space ships or the future I would label as complete adult handicaps, schizophrenia or worse, just stupidity or arrogance. 

Arrogance has replaced curiosity in this nation. I'm glad my grandparents made me humble and capable of human shame. The people I encounter online, as someone who actually has a science degree from an excellent school, makes me want to vomit. 

No in my progression from working class girl to undergrad to grad student, what I've decided is that we need a sort of light scientific authoritarian vibe. 

These people are moronic and short of simply murdering them we are going to have to follow the rules of law for good of all. This culture has supplied us with arrogant white male idiots. We absolutely must override them for the continuation of mankind. 

Capitalism is inherently destructive to nature and non white culture.


----------



## Ziegel

The fact that your job is of little value for others doesn't mean that it's the evil white male capitalism's fault. Grow up.


----------



## Aridela

Teach it better. 

Take the focus away from repetition and mindless calculations of stuff. 

Offer hints of real life applications.


----------



## Innocentia

Well, I'm still learning how to communicate on a forum, but there's something I know. If something is repeated enough, it may actually come to the mind of the collective, and it has to be short enough, unlike my last post...

What about backing up your opinions with science so they're not just opinions mmh? We have no other methods to know if something work or doesn't, so if you want to say something which produce what you want to produce (in this case, to be more interested by science, which has to be a political goal, we don't do science from the will of some individuals, but from the will of the society), back it up and tell your sources.

For example a part of what Forest Nymph said is backed up by science, we have a current hegemonious discourse mostly produced by a privileged demographic which give different rules to the privileged and to the marginalized, which favor the privileged (that wasn't hard to figure it out, was it?).

Oh and I don't debate *in public*, this method isn't used in science... which is an indication that this method doesn't produce what you want to produce.

Sources:
"Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture" and "Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste" from Pierre Bourdieu
"Political Anthropology" from Georges Balandier
"We have never been modern" from Bruno Latour


----------

