Spring 2000 NSI Script - Day 2
Journal Starters (on overhead):
“Concern for man and his fate must always form the chief interest of all technical endeavors. Never forget this in the midst of your diagrams and equations.” -- Albert Einstein
“Men and women are not content to comfort themselves with tales of gods and giants, or to confine their thoughts to the daily affairs of life. They also build telescopes and satellites and accelerators, and sit at their desks for endless hours working out the meaning of the data they gather. The effort to understand the universe is one of the very few things that lifts human life a little above the level of farce, and gives it some of the grace of tragedy.” -- Steven Weinberg
Explore the National Science Foundation Web site: www.nsf.gov and/or American Association for the Advancement of Science: www.aaas.org.
What do you think of the choice of programs supported? What do you think about the arguments for the importance of science and technology?
Take one of the goals on your list (not discussed in class) and analyze it like we did with the items on the class list.
Science literacy discussion summary
----------------
Reminder to check by your name on the attendance sheet each day
Questions?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
When designing this course, I thought it might be useful to dedicate one class period to discussing some of the general characteristics of science (in particular, what people like and dislike about it) and the reasons why we do science. This will help stir up and build some connections that we can develop throughout the course, that show how science connects to the rest of our lives. I have 3 goals for today (write on board): (1) I want to explore the motivations for learning about science (its results and its processes). (2) I want us to articulate some of the key characteristics of science, and (3) the discussions today should help prepare us for the topic of the next class: pseudoscience (something claiming to be a science, that is not.)
Start out with discussion of why you should know about science. This course exists because some people in the university (presumably including me!) think that it is important for you to know certain things about science, even if you’re not going to make a career of science or engineering. So what might some of those reasons be? Why should you know about science? Would anything terribly bad happen to our society if we lost the ability to do science? I want to start off with some thinking and discussion of these questions. Partly just to involve you in the thinking behind this (so it’s not just imposed on you by others as what’s good for you), and also because the course is somewhat flexible as far as emphasis, and the reasons for knowing science will certainly have an influence on what, specifically, you should know.
Divide students into groups. Ask them to make a list of 3 categories (write on board):
1) How would you define science? What characterizes it and distinguishes it from other ways of knowing about the world?
2) Good things about science - List reasons why they (or they think others) are interested in and supportive of science.
3) Bad things about science - List of why they (or they think others) are not interested in science or feel hostile towards science.
For each item, also think about the questions “Is this impression justified? Is it a fundmental part of science?”
[Note: You may need to carefully explain what these questions are asking. For example, if a “negative” aspect of science is “arrogant scientists,” are scientists in general really arrogant or is this just a stereotype? If they really are arrogant, is that a necessary consequence of the nature of science or could that be changed?
After their lists are completed (allow about 15 minutes), make a composite list for the class (go around the room taking one item from each group until they run out of ideas) and discuss each item.
Definition of science- what works over what doesn’t, ....
Some Good Things About Science:
-produces technology that makes life better
-produces knowledge
-challenges the imagination
-gives us perspective, an idea of how we fit into the rest of the universe
-beauty of equations, of universe that it reveals
-accessible and democratic: anyone should be able to repreat experiments and get the same results
Some Bad Things About Science:
-tedious, difficult, inaccessible--some of this is due to the precision that scientists are trying to achieve, nature has its own “language”--mathematics
-science is not for the impatient--a fair amount of knowledege and skills are needed to appreciate and get to some of the interesting stuff
-data gets separated from the question its trying to answer
-tears down stories that gave life meaning without replacing stories--refer to SII
non-human, nothing special about humans or individuals (some of this attitude came from the parting of science and religion)
-bad effects of technology
-doesn’t address questions that people care about (esoteric, irrelevant subjects)
* If you’re interested in following up on the discussion of the value of knowing about science (e.g. as a journal topic), you might get some ideas from a summary posting which I’ve put on the web site.
[ 10 min. break]
This next activity is a way to help you think about connections between your life and methods of science:
Have the students write down 5-10 goals they have. They can range from very personal, specific goals to their goals for society. Only requirement is that they are goals that they truly care about. Also have them write down what they think prevents (or may prevent) them from achieving each goal. (ie. what are the obstacles that make it a challenge to achieve your goals?) Ask them to consider how knowledge of science and/or its methods can help them achieve these goals. (This makes it a little easier for you...they can help you when you’re trying to figure out on the spot what science has to do with their goals.) Collect at least one goal from each student in the class and write them on the board, discussing how science relates to each one. Some will relate much better than others--that’s OK. (Note: Collecting a goal from each student is a good chance to see if you remember everyone’s name.) This exercise can take quite a while if the class is large.
Science was invented to help people achieve their goals. Nature has built in constraints and limitations to what we are able to do. We can’t wish that we were on the moon and suddenly appear there. However, there is a way that we can get to the moon, provided that we follow a general sequence of steps (build a rocket, find the fuel, etc.). Through science, we try to understand exactly what the constraints are; then we use engineering to figure out how to achieve our goals within those constraints. The precision and attention to detail which characterizes science is fundamentally there because getting the right answer really MATTERS, if we want to achieve our goals.
(Science = choosing what works over what doesn’t)
Some potential goals (examples from previous classes):
lose weight-chemistry, willpower, convience foods
live a long life-pollution, danger of accidents, threat of war, diseases...
world peace-differing beliefs, lack of communication, greed, pride, fear, hunger...
end world hunger-over population, lack of good transportation, wars, difficulty growing necessary quantity of food
save the environment-industry, cars, greed, ignorance...
make more money-non-marketable skills, few job openings, no time to work more
write book-no time, writer’s block, nothing to say, difficulty publishing
win race, game, etc.-not fast or strong enough, etc.
get degree-no time, difficulty passing classes..
get married-can’t find right partner, no time
have kids-can’t find right partner, infertility
buy a house (boat, etc.)-see “make more money”
---- stopped here day 2 -----------
Day 3:
Journal Starter:
“Nothing is more terrible than activity without insight.” -- Thomas Carlyle
- finish goals statements
- summarize activity: science is not just what you study in classes, in abstract. It’s a recognition of constraints put on us, in all parts of our lives, by an external world that rewards figuring out what really works.
Funding Priorities:
We’ve talked about common perceptions of science, both positive and negative, and we’ve talked about why science might be important to you as an individual. Now let’s think about some of the decisions that we make as a society about what science is worth supporting.
To do this, I want to stage a debate. Imagine that we have $50 million to spend on a single research project. Each group will be assigned to be an advocate for one of those projects. I’m going to give you about 20 minutes to come up with an argument for why we should put the money into your project. While you are preparing your argument, you should be thinking about the arguments that the other groups are likely to come up with, so that you can better defend your project. You can also come up wtih questions/objections about the projects of the other groups. Keep in mind that this is just an exercise. You may or may not really belive that the project that you are assigned really is the one that most deserves the money. The goal is to give you some awareness of the arguments that people can make from all different sides and some appreciation for how difficult these decisions can be. These decisions do have to be made by someone, and in many cases, it’s your tax dollars that are being spent. (And these discussions really do take place, in congressional debates, often involving people who know relatively little about the science and have little time to learn more.)
Just to give you some context (note that much of science funding comes from sources other than the federal government, but this is a nice way to focus the discussion - and you probably have more stake in how public money is being spent):
Show NSF budget (from www.nsf.gov) and total federal budget (from back of 1040 tax booklet). Point out that the NSF accounts for about 20% of federal funding for basic research in universities.
After your group has had time to talk and come up with your argument, we’ll go from group to group, giving each group spokesperson a chance to present their case. Then we will open the floor for discussion/debate about each project. Any questions/objections will be adressed to the whole group, not just the spokesperson (i.e., anyone can answer).
I don’t expect you to be experts in the fields you are defending...just use your general knowledge and sense of values.
Group Topics;
1. Searching for a cure for cancer.
2. SETI: Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (radio telescope search)
3. Searching/developing new energy sources (solar, hydro, nuclear, etc.)
4. Searching for a cure AIDS
5. Exploring other planets in our solar system (Mars, etc.)
6. Genetic engineering to improve yields and nutritional value of crops.
7. Spacewatch program to look for earth-crossing asteroids, devise deflection mechanisms
8. Cosmology research -trying to learn history of distant galaxies and the universe as a whole
Summary: recognize trade-offs always necessary. Not enough just to argue that your project is a valuable thing to do, because simply cannot do everything - just like in your individual life, if you spend time on one thing, you cannot spend that time on something else.
Reading from Feynman. In this essay he addresses some ideas about pros and cons of science, so a good way to focus some of the thinking we came up with. Feel free to interrupt with questions or comments as I read through this.
- 10 min (allow 30 min max)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PREVIOUS STUDENTS’ LIST OF SCIENCE PROS AND CONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pros:
challenges/risk
technology (computers, drugs, longer lives...)
endless possibilities
experimental
way of understanding
understandable, builds up explanation
makes life easier
power, money, advancement
interesting
Cons:
technology (computers, drugs, longer lives, effects of environment...)
conflicts with religious beliefs
manipulating nature (cloning, etc.)
intimidating
impersonal
difficult
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PREVIOUS STUDENTS’ LIST OF GOALS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
increase importance of education in certain ethnic communities
be more efficient
graduate
get good grades
run a marathon in 3 1/2 hours
pay off student loans
get more women into science & engineering
live a long life
reduce stress
read more books
sell jewelry in Saturday Market
help troubled kids
become a pilot
lose weight
social justice
help the environment
become a scuba diving instructor
get a book published
make and sell pottery
become a vegan
(Excerpt from SII discussion on science literacy)
Hi everyone,
Let's see if I can summarize some of the key issues/questions that have been
raised so far on the science literacy question, and add a few more. Then
maybe we can think about how to organize the points to provide a productive
direction for action.
In answer to the first question (Why is it important for the "average
person" to know about science?), the key themes so far seem to be:
- It's part of being well-rounded and able to understand and participate in
references and connections that are part of our culture. (much like knowing
current political events, highlights of history, etc.)
- It helps people make decisions on the basis of scientific evidence, and
helps them avoid being conned by pseudoscience practitioners. Medical care
and environmental issues are two good examples here. (A small aside: The
issue of why people are drawn to pseudoscience is very important, and is
something I think we should return to as a future discussion topic).
- Critical thinking and problem-solving skills, central to science, are
valuable in many areas of life.
- Knowledge of science can change how we perceive the world, and this
perception impacts decisions we make in all areas of life. This is the main
reason I care so much about having people understand science. So, I'll
elaborate on my perspective on this: It seems to me we should recognize
that we, with our thoughts, feelings, hopes, and goals, are part of this
universe described by science. Our ideas about how we want to develop as
people and as a society are intertwined with what we believe about how this
universe basically works. So we ought to be doing science and teaching it
with the conscious objective of building up and modifying our individual
"worldviews" of "how we fit into things." After all, it is really IDEAS,
what people BELIEVE is important for them to do, that mostly shape society.
No matter what kind of society we live in, the context for our lives is set
by the universe which produces us and gives us the constraints and
possibilities we experience. We all are made of elements that once were in
the cores of stars; we all find that certain materials are necessary to keep
us warm or to keep us from being hungry; we all find that certain kinds of
vibrations in the air (called music) can make us feel certain ways.
Ultimately, I think, we must know what that context is, what the properties
of nature tell us about what it is "trying to do," in order to make our
lives fully meaningful. Science can be an important tool for uncovering
this context. Without it, I think, people's efforts are seriously
handicapped in this area.
- Economic growth is often tied to scientific progress, and a
"science-literate" workforce is needed to maintain this growth (and
"compete" in the world marketplace?). The average standard of living has
improved a great deal as a result of scientific progress, and some level of
science literacy overall may be needed in order to maintain this standard of
living.
- Related to the last point, national defense has depended a great deal on
science, especially since WWII. In fact, the primary justification for the
extensive federal funding of basic science research we have today is that
its importance to national defense was clearly recognized after WWII (NSF,
DOE, etc. all started as part of the wave of support for national science
that followed the war). So, we need a workforce and military personnel who
are science-literate. (I suppose the defense issue was behind much of the
science education push that followed Sputnik?)
The answer to the second question (what should they know about science?)
will obviously depend a great deal on the answer to the first. The necessary
knowledge is different for different purposes. So eventually, we'll
probably want to tie the answers to the 2 questions together. Anyway,
here's what I see so far as answers to this second question:
- They should learn that science isn't as remote, abstract, and intimidating
as they may have previously believed. This point is related to Eric's
comments in reply to Amanda:
> I worry that much of science, as it is currently taught,
> is indeed remote and abstract. In high school I had to
> memorize all the bones and muscles in the body, as well
> as all the elements in the periodic table -- it struck me
> as rather unimportant. Further, think about how much of a
> basic physics course is abstract. You spend lots of time
> learning technical definitions of things such as "force" and
> "energy", and memorizing equations, in order to analyze simple,
> artificial situations.
Brian pointed out that some memorization and terminology are essential for
understanding:
> If one does not develop the specialized vocabulary of a field, how can one
> become conversant in the ideas that it presents to us. You certainly know
> what electrons, protons, and neutrons ARE, to a much greater extent than
> the sixth grader who has just been taught the definitions and shown the
> Bohr model of the atom. But I suspect that you started your journey
> towards understanding subatomic particles in the same place (perhaps
> earlier than sixth grade): accepting the "facts" as presented, first by
> memorizing them, then by making connections to other parts of your
> experience and understanding of the universe. In your remark above, it
> appears that you are frustrated by only seeing people being taught the
> vocabulary but not the meaning and implications of that vocabulary on their
> worldviews and/or political and economic choices. I would assert that one
> must go through that first exercise, and accept the fact that many do not
> move beyond it. I suspect that some of the lack of progress is due to a
> lack of understanding by science teachers (and their concominant sin of not
> applying appropriate teaching methods), but I suspect that the larger
> responsibility falls upon us scientists for not for actively convincing
> society of the importance and value of good scientific literacy and
> critical thinking. People can operate just fine in our society without
> knowing much about science. The fact that they could live better if they
> payed more attention to the subject and its methods is accepted by you and
> I but most remain unconvinced. Why?
It seems to me that we should, as Eric suggested, be rethinking how these
courses are taught. Two key questions come to my mind here:
1) Again, what is our goal in teaching science? The approach depends
critically on the outcome we're after. I'd suggest that if we're going
after an appreciation and respect for what science can do, and trying to
change people's attitudes about science and its relevance to them, then we
can afford to go very light on vocabulary and definition. (On the other
hand, if we're training future scientists, they may need to know the
language first, in order to converse easily with others in their field). It
would be nice if all students knew the Bohr model of the atom. But more
important for most, I think, is that they understand the general questions
that led to the Bohr model. I'd like them to have spent some time thinking
about the question of what things are made of, how finely you can break up
matter, and how in the world you go about discovering how small the pieces
are and what they look like. In my astronomy classes I always start things
out by having students go out and look at the stars, and try to figure out
methods for determining their distances. Once they've wrestled with the
question, the distances I give them later in the class have a clearer
meaning and context. And in fact, I'd much rather they remember the process
of how we tried to figure out the distances, than that they actually
remember the numbers. This may be something like what Keith Devlin had in
mind in suggesting that we teach "science awareness" rather than "science
literacy?"
2) In what order to we present things? The order of presentation clearly
matters. Maybe the vocabulary can come later, when the students have
already generated questions they care about, so that the information they
learn won't seem boring and unimportant in the way Eric described. By
focusing on "meaningless" vocabulary in the early stages, we may turn people
off so they won't stay around long enough to find out that there is real
meaning and interest behind the terminology.
In any case, it seems that an important topic for discussion is the balance
and order of "questions" and "answers" that will both keep people engaged
and achieve the level of knowledge that we're after in the end. The details
of how this is done probably have a strong influence on people's attitudes
about science.
- They should have a basic understanding of the scientific method, how we
draw conclusions, what we mean by evidence, what makes us so confident about
some knowledge claims but not others, etc. This would also give them a more
complete picture of how science works, which might help counteract some of
the media problems Eric pointed out:
> I think a key problem is that the media tends to overstate
> scientific results. Especially with medical science, all results
> somehow appear conclusive or revolutionary.
The newsmedia tend (understandably) to focus on the new and exciting and
different, so they focus on the "edges" and make everything revolutionary.
If you don't have the big picture of how a subject has evolved, you get the
impression that scientists are completely changing their minds every few
weeks! The big bang theory is a good example of this: Even though the basic
picture is well understood and widely accepted (the universe IS expanding,
WAS once extremely hot, etc.), there are many interesting details that are
still very uncertain (e.g. how fast it's expanding, how long ago (10-20
billion years) it was in this very hot state, etc.) Yet to read many news
articles about it, you'd think scientists were ready to scrap the whole
theory everytime someone finds it is expanding a little faster or slower
than previously thought. It's as if you saw a car coming toward you at a
speed you measured as 60 mph, and then later concluded that the car isn't
moving at all, because a different measurement recorded the speed as 55 mph.
A better overall understanding of how science works and how theories are
refined might help combat this kind of problem.
- They should have some direct experience with the fun and excitement of
science, of seeing something amazing about how the world works.
- They should gain basic skills in critical thinking, problem solving, math
(especially statistics?)
- Some kind of overview or highlights of the key findings of science - big
ideas that they will remember, at least vaguely, for a long time.
Have I left out anything important? So far only the "scientists" have been
talking - those of you on the list who are not trained as scientists, what
do you think? Are we covering the reasons you feel science is important,
and the skills you think are most valuable? All perspectives are very
welcome, in trying to figure out what most needs to be done.
This discussion, by the way, is turning out to be very timely. I met
yesterday with some folks from Science Service (the organization that
publishes Science News). They're planning a major public awareness campaign
next year, to "raise awareness across America of the vital importance of
science literacy." Part of this program will be a series of nationally
televised "summits" to discuss science literacy. So there's an opportunity
for us to be involved in these, if we'd like to, and bring the ideas we come
up with into wider view.
Todd
#
.com/i/logo_s.gif ,8;߱8 http://www.macaddict.com/images_main/headers_snav/magazine/backissue_hd_sm.gif ߱88 http://adcreatives.imaginemedia.com/MAC/2000/Magazine/Zones.010800.kingston_1-25.120x90.1.gif?951181253880