Seed Science Essay contest winners: What does 'scientific literacy' mean?
The winning essays are very good -- short, sweet and moving. Both converge on a single main point: scientific reasoning, characterized by a willing to rely on evidence instead of investment in some old institution, is sorely lacking from the public sphere, especially politics. From Thomas W. Martin's first-prize-winning Scientific Literacy and the Habit of Discourse
Several current presidential candidates have insisted that they oppose the scientific account of earth's natural history as a matter of principle. In the present cultural climate, altering one's beliefs in response to anything (facts included) is considered a sign of weakness. Students must be convinced that changing one's mind in light of the evidence is not weakness: Changing one's mind is the essence of intellectual growth. By forcing students into evidence-based debates with one another, this mode of interaction, like any other, can become habitual. After being consistently challenged by their peers, most students eventually see that attempts to free themselves from facts are a hollow, and fundamentally precarious, form of "freedom."Link (Thanks, Steven!)In an era in which we tremble at offending the sensibilities of our neighbors, students must comprehend that it is not only possible but absolutely vital that we criticize each other's ideas firmly yet civilly. They must do this despite clear cases of prominent scientists falling into petty, acerbic (and therefore counterproductive) exchanges. The responsibility for fostering scientific literacy of this sort--that is, literacy construed as an ongoing commitment to evidence over preconception--falls upon all of us in our discussions both formal and informal, both public and private. When scientific celebrities fail to set a good example for students, it is especially incumbent upon the rest of us to set them back on the proverbial right track, rather than to reflexively hasten their derailment.
the latest
latest episodes
I just finally got around to reading the essays just before I checked BB and found this here, crazy. Best line was, "abstract thought is routinely sacrificed on the altar of standardized testing."
The first essay from the link has some real gems:
Indeed it is. I think it was Clinton that was always derided for "waffling" on issues. Isn't that what you're supposed to do, though, as an open minded individual? As new facts come in, people need to be able to change their opinion. I'm far more suspicious of a person who never changes their opinion than one who changes it frequently. Politicians shouldn't get shafted simply for changing their mind! As long as it's for a good reason (and not, e.g., massive bribes). True indeed. From what I've been reading in the comments section recently, this may be a lesson that BoingBoing itself needs to learn.
It is absolutely vital that ideas be criticized, provided it is done in a civil manner. I've seen a lot of good, civil debate here, but I've also seen a number of good, civil, but dissenting posts that weren't there next time I looked, or had all of their vowels stripped, making them very difficult to read.
Maybe reading that essay will help settle things down. Adding comments back to BoingBoing is either the best thing ever or the worst thing ever, depending on how opposing opinions are handled.
JHudson, there will have been a notice in those threads explaining that the comments in question were posted by sockpuppets of a BB reader who'd been temporarily denied the right to post on account of misbehavior in another thread.
We're all for the civil here. Civil is what we're aiming for. And if you know of a large online forum that manages to be civil without having some form of moderation in place, you're one up on me.
"Indeed it is. I think it was Clinton that was always derided for "waffling" on issues. Isn't that what you're supposed to do, though, as an open minded individual?"
Maybe. The problem when it comes to politicians changing their minds is determining whether a) they have had a serious change of heart or b) the sudden change is do more for calculated political reasons.
For example, does anyone really believe that Rudy Giuliani has suddenly had a change of heart about gun control? Or that Mitt Romney has had a genuine change of heart about abortion and gay marriage?
Rather, it seems that, like most politicians, these two changed their minds on key issues due to strict political calculus rather than any genuine change of opinion.
An example of this from Clinton's presidency is his position and actions on gays in the military which seemed less principled than politically calculated.
"Several current presidential candidates have insisted that they oppose the scientific account of earth's natural history as a matter of principle."
The retro trend in US politicians (19th-century style robber-baron mentality) may be politically expedient at this juncture, but it is simply more crap leadership. Just as leading us into the dark valley of the no-tax but spend, deep-credit economy is crap leadership.
There's a special kind of schizo irony in a people bathed in the luxurious products of technology -- all made possible by the scientific mindset and reasoned approach to life -- who use their computers, phones, televisions and medical health to push for old-time religious dogma.
"Changing one's mind is the essence of intellectual growth."
Great point. I've known people to get all the way through college without realizing that very few questions have single, universally recognized answers.
One of the characteristic behaviors I've observed in highly intelligent people is that when they've just explained something at length, and someone else has responded with a new datum or theory that blows their explanation out of the water, they come back with "Oh, that's interesting! I hadn't heard that. Go on?"
"The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn." Alvin Toffler
"Great point. I've known people to get all the way through college without realizing that very few questions have single, universally recognized answers."
And yet, typically, the way science is taught at anything but the advanced level is: here, remember these simple answers.