You know, I don’t have a problem with people who are fans of something. But just come out and say it, OK? It means you’re biased in favor of something and that’s fine. ”

I wrote that and it’s pretty arrogant of you to assume that I’m a “PZ fan” simply because I had serious problems with the same number of chapters.

FYI, one of them was need “The internet won’t save us”, but the other was NOT the religion chapter. I don’t give a rat’s tail about whether or not PZ is insulted. He put it out there and, from what I can tell, he can handle the heat. Yes, I read his blog – about 25% of it. If that is what “fan” means, so be it.

The other chapter I disliked intensely was “Why Pluto Matters” because in it the authors give the distinct impression (in fact, they pretty much state it outright) that science and scientists should consider the public’s feelings when deciding matters of science.

Scientists should not even consider THEIR OWN feelings. That’s WHY they use SCIENCE.

And I also don’t give a rat’s tail if you don’t like my use of capital letters for emphasis.

By the way, science literacy in this country is going UP, not down. And you can present statistics to support the opposite if you feel compelled; I won’t bother to pick them apart. It’s not that important of a point. I completely agree that it should be rising at a much higher rate than it is and it is far too low for my comfort level. However, scientists not being “sexy” is NOT the problem.

No, the scientifically illiterate are not just a bunch of stupid people, but intelligence is not the only factor in critical thinking ability. We still need to look more closely at EDUCATION – at the elementary level.

And what do you think the results will be if science, in the face of clear evidence that people are not going to take the responsibility you have assigned them? Assigned rather pedantically, if not aristocratically, I might add.

That is the real world condition which the funding of science and the support of science either deals with, or it watches the results of a harried, busy, ill-educated, media-distracted public stop caring about science and its funding. You watch as any demagogue who finds it useful to them to attack science and its funding.

Your proposal that scientists leave the explanation and promotion of their work to others is an argument for the status quo. The only alternative being widely practiced by those with science degrees is to insult the public and tell them they’re superstitious. Would you expect to sell Sham-wows that way?

TB, I just went for the whole quote. I haven’t read the book. Also, the point I made about the statistics cited is accurate. Yes, they relate to scientific literacy but as I said, they do not remotely support M&K’s solution in any way. In the article these statistics are only exploited as a jumping off point for Chris to assert his particular opinion. Now I have no objection to Chris expressing his opinion in print as long as opinion isn’t being passed off as facts backed up by statistical data.

Strangel wrote:
I can’t even read Mooney and Kirshenbaum anymore. Science is not an aristocracy whereby the elite can impose their education on the citizens. It is the responsibility of every homosapien to pick up a book, take a class, ask a neighbor; Do their own homework.

I spend a majority of my free time educating those who have been deceived by an imposed “truth” put upon them by people acting in an aristocratic manner (as do innumerable others). Very few of the deceived do their own homework and the rest refuse to do any at all.

As long as our own government refuses to educate themselves in science why would a citizen feel obligated to?

(Unbelieveable… I was asked to remove the first two syllables of homosapien… we’re doomed as a species…)

I did not write “BTW I love your blog!”, and don’t click the link associated with the initials TB at #34. It’s some kind of spam.

What a shock. He doesn’t like it much because he thinks the way to change because: “The point is that in those areas where we can say that scientific ignorance is leading people towards bad decisions and bad public policy it is because there are powerful social forces working very hard to make sure people remain ignorant.”

Onward culture warriors!
BTW I love your blog!

What a shock. He doesn’t like it much because he thinks the way to change because: “The point is that in those areas where we can say that scientific ignorance is leading people towards bad decisions and bad public policy it is because there are powerful social forces working very hard to make sure people remain ignorant.”

Onward culture warriors!

“Start with a statistic that does not remotely support your argument. ”

He started with three statistics – two on general science knowledge and one on how different public opinion is from scientists on a specific issue. All three speak to science literacy, two refer to knowledge that could have a direct influence on public policy.

They absolutely help make a case for new approaches to science literacy.

“despite 2 glaringly BAD chapters”

Gee, I wonder what two chapters those could be? I realize you’re quoting someone else, but you quoted them.

You know, I don’t have a problem with people who are fans of something. But just come out and say it, OK? It means you’re biased in favor of something and that’s fine.

“I was an IGERT fellow myself, and I can tell you that scientific literacy is NOT the goal of the program. Students in PhD programs KNOW THEIR SCIENCE ALREADY. The program is designed to provide training in research which emphasizes interdisciplinary work.”

And that focus on interdisciplinary work is exactly why the program was mentioned. Just because it doesn’t focus on communication now doesn’t mean it can’t incorporate communications programs. And, see how I typed all that without resorting to all caps?

Let me address a couple of other canards hanging around this blog, (but not necessarily held by Skepacabra) :

- “Scientists are busy – many of them teach.” So, instead of time in the classroom, there would be time spent on projects designed to inform the general public. And the two activities would be treated equally in terms of employment and tenure. Plus, in order to make this happen you would actually be adding positions, which would provide more employment for scientists.
- “Can’t take scientists away from research.” Interestingly, they make this point in the book, that research shouldn’t suffer due to outreach efforts.
- “The public is too stupid to care about science.” Most of the public aren’t currently attending school, where they get exposed to science on a regular basis (we hope) and in such a way that makes it personally important (grades). The kind of effort being put forth by the authors is one intended to address the vacuum of science literacy after people leave school. The last time I was in school was 1984, and I guarantee you there was no discussion of stem cells in any of the classes I took.

http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2009/07/reviewing_unscientific_america.php