« I'd Want to See His Driver's License Before Getting in the Car With This Guy
Main
Fishing with Fire »
September 25, 2007
Scientific Literacy
Thomas Martin, an Honors Faculty Fellow at Barrett Honors College of Arizona State University, wrote an award winning essay entitled "Scientific Literacy and the Habit of Discourse." His essay is packed with abnormally interesting thoughts. Here is one example,
Science works because its core dynamics—not its methods or techniques per se—are rooted in pitting intellects against one another. Science eventually yields impressive answers because it compels smart people to incessantly try to disprove the ideas generated by other smart people.
While not a new idea, I found the concise way Martin expressed it extremely helpful. Before anyone thinks this in anyway implies "teaching the controversy" where one position is a well established scientific theory and the other a religious dogma trying to disguise itself as a scientific theory, read Martin's whole essay, practically these words,
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."
Martin, won this year's the Second Annual Seed Science Writing Contest answering the question: What does it mean to be scientifically literate in the 21st Century?
Give Martin's essay a read. Also take a few minutes and read "Camelot Is Only a Model: Scientific Literacy in the 21st Century" by the second place winner by Steven Saus. This one has a somewhat antirealist feel, at least to me, but I did fine it very interesting.
Via Pharyngula
Posted by Duane Smith at September 25, 2007 3:57 PM | Read more on Science - General |
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.telecomtally.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2264
Comments
Dr. Martin is - in my experience this week - always packed with abnormally interesting thoughts. A fascinating man, teaching a class I'd absolutely love to be in.
Anyway, I can understand how you saw "Camelot" to be anti-realist, but perhaps this puts it in context for you:
I've run into a lot of people who became very anti-science simply because they found out the simple model they were taught in middle school isn't the most accurate model out there. Then they feel (and perhaps rightly so) that thier science teacher lied... and they lose all trust in those trying to teach them more science.
I understand that maybe my ten year old is going to be able to get Newton's laws and not Einstein's (yet) - but I should be always careful to make the distinction between "this is how we describe motion" and "this is how it is".
Posted by: Steven Saus at September 27, 2007 7:42 PM
Dr. Saus,
Thanks for visiting Abnormal Interests and thanks for taking time to leave a comment. In the pedagogical context, I do indeed understand your remarks. One of the problems lay people who are not involve in the ongoing dialog face is the unsettled nature of many scientific pursuits. I remember someone, I'm not sure who, making a remark to this effect, "Most people are concerned that something denied a person on Monday may be given to them intravenously on Tuesday." The context was the changing nature of medical science.
Posted by: Duane at September 28, 2007 11:58 AM
Post a comment
Please read Abnormal Interest's Comments Policy.