Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 268 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
429 Posts
I don't know what we could do. I don't see what's so appealing about the entertainment industry and those reality TV shows anyway, don't know why they would rather worship those pathetic people than marvel at the wonders of the universe. I don't know what it is. When I talk about science at home my sister goes "oh, there she goes with that science crap again." But it's not just her -- my aunt does this too. And it truly hurts me, and I have no idea why they're so hostile towards it, why they don't find it interesting. And I want to change their minds, but I don't think we can... it starts with childhood, definitely. Because it seems after they grow up, it's already too late.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,321 Posts
Connect Sciences with Humanities and illustrate the importance and truth value of both in a person's life. I think that everyone who likes reality tv shows would enjoy a dramatization about Mesalina's murders and promiscuity followed by reasonable biological hypotheses as to why she couldn't control her urges.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
819 Posts
Well, they can stop dumbing down the class room for one.
don't believe me? ask yourself this, when was the last ime they learned civics?government? real history?
how many people actually know the differnce between a mayor and a city manager?
wahts a board of supervisors? know how a public utility works?
How about computing simple interest? Name the points of the bill of rights, articles of the US constitution?....

need I go on? interest in the sciences, any science, not just geology, biology, etc but
Political science, sociology, history, etc.. has been under a continual assault to pairdown content and skim over.
A retired teacher freind of mine would tell me stories of teaching african hitory (of the continent, for geography) was only making a "native mask", nothing of the european colonial period (zulu/boer wars), nothing of tribal conflicts today..because that was the 'official' lesson plan, and the american civil war? one paragrgh..."lincoln freed the slaves"

I suggest instead of lowering the bar ''tah bah fahr to dah luwr kids'' and ruining those that would be brilliant in those subjects, give the few strugglers tudoring, what happened to repeating grades? summer school?.

I've had teachers with a flare for the theatric that made dry subjects interesting, giving teachers a freer hand to treach in their own style, and incentive them to do so, get rid of the ones that treat students like wortless sacks of meat.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,123 Posts
One of the reasons I couldn't make it as a History teacher is following the official lesson plan. I would be telling the kids all the side stuff too much like the principles of the battle formations people used in the past, various tid bits I have gotten from the history channel about the subject, and how the issue of freeing the slaves wasn't the reason for the civil war and that it wasn't really brought up till later. Video games have triggered interest in various things like science and history but the interest and love of those subjects have always been with me so I can't really say they did everything.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
610 Posts
Anti-intellectualism is a huge problem in my opinion. I think people dislike science and find it boring because it is conceptually inaccessible to the general populace.

I blame this on poorly constructed University degree programs. There is no reason we can't offer more generalized advanced science courses for people that aren't majoring in the sciences...

I'm a research scientist working on my PhD so it was necessary for me to take highly technical advanced course in chemistry, physics, math, and engineering.... I probably have about 50 credits out of my 250 credits devoted to music courses - this is because I got lucky and my school had performance courses that were available to people that were just interested in playing as a hobby. I can "sight read" with the best of them - thus I can appreciate when a piece is difficult etc - but I couldn't hope to play an instrument in any professionally meaningful way - for me it is just a hobby...

Lots of people that aren't musicians play instruments and like music because it is accessible as a hobby.. if we want people to like and appreciate science we have to first make it accessible.. and imo the only way we can do that is by offering advanced classes in science that don't require you to do what I did (triple major in 3 areas of science) before you are able to understand what is going on... if I'd had to meet the same performance requirements as the music majors I wouldn't have continued beyond my first university class in music cos I would have failed...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
type (Math Education: An Inconvenient Truth) in youtube and you might understand why math and science isn't understood well to a large percentage of the public. In it you will see a woman talk about how math is taught, but I really don't think she has a grasp about what math really is. She speaks about algorithms and how we need to focus on the old traditional 12x11= 12+120= 132 is the only algorithm that should be taught because it is the most efficient algorithm. Then she talks about about how newer math programs make people dependent of calculators. In reality the old traditional algorithm is just like using a calculator, just using a very old calculator. I is more important to know, in my opinion, why the algorithms work.

Why does this effect science? Because when all you teach is algorithms and formulas then many people don't understand to concept of why things work. Since they don't really know why things work it seems like a bunch of abstract formulas and it is hard to put a bunch of abstract formulas into real life applications. Sense science and physics is math used in a practical way and most people are taught only abstract formulas many people don't have a true understanding of how each formula applies to each other it causes a disinterest.

Type (jamesblackburnlynch) in youtube and he explains it better then me in the re: math education: an inconvenient truth video. His channel has a few videos explaining an answer to your question.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,128 Posts
Unfortunately... sciences take a bit of intellectual 'maturity'. It is more than reading off facts and remembering them. My position is that inaccessibility is caused by a difficulty in attaining this 'maturity'.

The deeper intricacies of true science, I mean true understanding of how to have a critical mind, and how to do abstractions and not be overwhelmed by complexity, how to do what is necessary and not more, are not things that can truly be taught out of any textbook, television program, or whatever; these are things which are picked up by experience alone as an individual gradually matures by being involved in it.
 

·
Cafe Legend and MOTM Jan 2011
Joined
·
15,420 Posts
I think the reason so many people get bored with science is that science is presented in a boring, impersonal way that makes it seem detached from anything meaningful or relevant. (By meaningful, in this context, I mean "that which relates to our interconnectedness" and by relevant, I mean "emotionally effective.") If it were presented differently, it might be more appealing.

The reason reality shows are popular is that they deal with human relationships, human minds, human feelings, and human psychology. Some also incorporate elements of game theory, and involve strategy, but those aren't the aspects that interest most viewers. I tend to feel that people are more interesting than things, and if this is a common attitude, it could be part of the reason dry facts about such-and-such star system, which is such-and-such distance away would be extremely dull. It wouldn't relate to anything I cared about, even slightly. If there is a way to apply the understanding of scientific information to something social or interpersonal, even if it must be done symbolically, I think more people would start feeling something positive about it rather than finding it so tedious.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
818 Posts
kindergarten spent mostly outside

learning about social skills devoted to nature & caring for it

In Finland, this fundamental belief is used in their kindergarten programs

this is why they are the most accomplished early learning defenders in the 21st century

than again they are one of the most academically well funded countries in the world
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
819 Posts
kindergarten spent mostly outside

learning about social skills devoted to nature & caring for it

In Finland, this fundamental belief is used in their kindergarten programs

this is why they are the most accomplished early learning defenders in the 21st century

than again they are one of the most academically well funded countries in the world
There, the money might actually get to the classroom, according to my freind (30+ years teaching special ed, being a principle, councilor and damn near every other position in her career here in CA) money isn't an issue, there's plenty, but it doesn't filter through the Bureaucracy down to the class and yet, they scream for more money, more, more, more....with the guilt club of 'think of the children!' as the weapon. and yes, I include the ruling levels of the teachers union too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,688 Posts
It needs to be less nerdy and start being cooler for people to start caring about it. When was the last time science made a scene at the VMAs? When was the last time science almost choked to death on a pretzel? When was the last time science did anything that didn't impact your life at all that the media made a big deal out of?

Never. Once it starts doing stuff like that, people will start caring.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,653 Posts
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?
First of all, all people have different interests, so you won't ever attract everyone to science by merely changing your promotion strategies or tactics. Secondly, brainless reality television and celebrity worshipping is easier to do and grasp as it requires much less brain cells to actually accomplish and appreciate. I don't think any amount of education or proper social conditioning will make enough people think otherwise to truly ever get rid of such popular trends. Third, it's obvious that more education concerning science would help, so that people have more exposure to it. But as far as I'm concerned, there is an adequate amount of science in society, largely, and it therefore seems that people simply have other interests and social preferences, so that the only way to truly promote science would be to simply get rid of the other choices (predominantly notions of fairy tale religious beliefs which draw people away from science, as it's seen as threatening to such views).

But all in all, my first point is the most important. Some people will enjoy science and some just won't.
We really cannot rationally expect people to like it in mass numbers. It takes a particular kind of nature to truly appreciate it (in particular, a love of knowledge, facts, and rational thinking).
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,624 Posts
Firstly, to change the conception of what 'science' is. It is not merely a subject one dapples in to obtain 'facts' (which is really not the case with science) but it is fundamentally a framework to understand life. It is a way of thinking and engaging with the world. It goes beyond the realms people draw around it. It is not a subject. It is a mindset, a set of lenses. Science is not about facts; it is about relationships, concepts, principals, fundamental units, interdependence, systems, balance etc. It is not a cohesive unit or institution, it is a playing field of many minds, where no science is equal.

In order to comprehend science, one must develop the skills over time to 'think scientifically and mathematically' (it's not something one can be taught, but must be developed). Otherwise they see themselves as separate from science as 'an institution' and thus any scientific understanding of the world, they consider 'beyond them' and better in the hands of 'experts' ( who they tend to distrust anyway). So in order to comprehend science, one must draw from multiple angles; (maths, history etc).

After understanding what science is and involves, a person can then understand why it is not 'wrong', 'bad', or 'counterproductive' if something hypothesised proves to be wrong, or something held to be evident proves false. This is not something to see as a bad thing, but ultimately the best thing that could happen. The scientific method does not ensure or promise stability. People have to understand that. Only if you begin to grasp the complexity of the world, can you begin to appreciate what a difficult task it is to embark on any scientific endeavor. Most people don't understand this unfortunately.

Americans like technology but seldom have a grasp of the science behind it. And the mathematics that is behind the science is regarded as even more mysterious, like an inner sanctum into which only initiates may gain entry. They see the rich and nourishing technological fruit on this tree of knowledge, but they see no deeper than the surface branches and twigs on which these fruits grow. To them, the region behind this exterior of the tree, where the trunk and limbs grow, is pointless and purposeless. "What's the use of math?" is the common query. "I'll never use it." When a nation's leaders are composed primarily of lawyers, administrators, military men and stars of the entertainment industry rather than statesmen, philosophers, the spiritual, and the men and women of science, then it sh...ould be no surprise that there is so little grasp of the simple reality that one cannot dispense with the trunk and limbs and still continue to enjoy the fruit.

..... What is it that would cause us to focus only on this external fruit of material development and play down the antecedent realms of abstraction that lie deeper? It would be good to find a word less condemning than "superficiality", but how else can this tendency be described in a word? Perhaps facing up to the ugly side of this word can stir us into action to remedy what seems to be an extremely grave crisis in Western education.

.... The first step toward [progress in crucial social problems] is to recognize the deceptive illusions bred by seeing only the surface of issues, of seeing only a myriad of small areas to be dealt with by specialists, one for each area. Piecemeal superficiality won't work.

... Teaching is not a matter of pouring knowledge from one mind into another as one pours water from one glass into another. It is more like one candle igniting another. Each candle burns with its own fuel. The true teacher awakens a love for truth and beauty in the heart--not the mind--of a student after which the student moves forward with powerful interest under the gentle guidance of the teacher. (Isn't it interesting how the mention of these two most important goals of learning--truth and beauty--now evokes snickers and ridicule, almost as if by instinct, from those who shrink from all that is not superficial.) These kinds of teachers will inspire love of mathematics, while so many at present diffuse a distaste for it through their own ignorance and clear lack of delight in a very delightful subject"

Mathematics is often thought of in terms of content such as number, space and measurement;
procedures for computing, constructing or measuring; or applications across a wide range of
situations. Yet, it is more aptly described as a way of thinking which allows concepts, processes and
their uses to be built up, problems to be explored and solved, conjectures to be made and examined,
and complex ideas about the world to be communicated in precise, succinct ways. Indeed, an ability
to think with and about mathematics has replaced the memorisation of set procedures and the solution
of routine problems as the focus of mathematics learning at all levels. Understanding number
concepts and operations and the ways they might be expressed will still be crucial in underpinning
these ideas, but so too will an ability to determine whether results, predictions and the implications
based on them seem reasonable. Thus, making sense of mathematics needs to be a central concern,
replacing speed in solving exercises and the external reward of a teacher’s mark or approval as
measures of success.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
751 Posts
I'm going to suggest "representation in everyday life." The science does not need to be understood in everyday life (e.g in motor racing) for said entertainment to be enjoyed. It's a realm of hypothetics or theoretical models which do not need to be touched. There is no need to, no reason for people to go there.

In our day and age we seek instant pleasures without working for it. In the past a person had to work many hours a week of back breaking labour so they could enjoy a brief rewarding respite. This isn't so much the case in the Western World these days, I'm not saying that's a bad thing but I am saying that if Science is viewed as unnecessary "hard work" without instant gratification it will be avoided like the plague.

What you need to do is either encourage people to work through science or to advertise science as something fun. Our generation get much through the media of televsion and internet. It needs to be marketed as fun and enjoyable. E.g. chemistry experiments which go volatile or exciting and the advert is marked as "want to enjoy this? Sign up as chemists and biologists!"

In a similar vein they advertise as "Help us explore the deepest secrets of space! Help us learn all the mysteries so that we can one day go on vacation to other worlds! Work towards becoming physicists today!"

Maybe its slightly cynical (as is all marketing) but it will help people who would otherwise have no interest in it to desire to be more involved in the process. Thats essentially what happened to me as a child, I've loved space ever since.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,624 Posts
I'm going to suggest "representation in everyday life." The science does not need to be understood in everyday life (e.g in motor racing) for said entertainment to be enjoyed. It's a realm of hypothetics or theoretical models which do not need to be touched. There is no need to, no reason for people to go there.

In our day and age we seek instant pleasures without working for it. In the past a person had to work many hours a week of back breaking labour so they could enjoy a brief rewarding respite. This isn't so much the case in the Western World these days, I'm not saying that's a bad thing but I am saying that if Science is viewed as unnecessary "hard work" without instant gratification it will be avoided like the plague.

What you need to do is either encourage people to work through science or to advertise science as something fun. Our generation get much through the media of televsion and internet. It needs to be marketed as fun and enjoyable. E.g. chemistry experiments which go volatile or exciting and the advert is marked as "want to enjoy this? Sign up as chemists and biologists!"

In a similar vein they advertise as "Help us explore the deepest secrets of space! Help us learn all the mysteries so that we can one day go on vacation to other worlds! Work towards becoming physicists today!"

Maybe its slightly cynical (as is all marketing) but it will help people who would otherwise have no interest in it to desire to be more involved in the process. Thats essentially what happened to me as a child, I've loved space ever since.
I think though, that if people are really to accept scientific thinking, they have to acknowledge that not everything may automatically give one instant gratification, or the cheap thrills and entertainment people have come to expect from media sources. Science like maths, isn't something to be passively consumed. Though perhaps it's a better start than complete ignorance? who knows. I agree with the need to communicate science in a way that appeals to people. But I think it's better to do this by focusing on what makes it interesting, valuable and relevant (as opposed to entertaining or fun, although they aren't mutually exclusive).

I think the assorted great communicators of science had large impacts on people, not because they entertained, but because they put things into context, and explained things clearly. They delved into the relationships and concepts weaving the connections to show 'the big picture', rather than merely discussing the various subjects as isolated cold, "facts", that probably seem meaningless to the average person. Their passion of these science communicators, for understanding the world, was also obvious, and I think passion rubs off on other people, as it did with my old science teacher and myself. I think people need intrinsic motivators to understand, it's not just about giving them a payoff for indulging in science through the means by which it is presented. Because sometimes, "the truth" may not seem 'pleasant' and the sheer complexity may seem very overwhelming. And also, because people should question every scientific discovery, conclusion, hypothesis, process they see.

Science research isn't as explorative and wonderful as it seems from the outset. There's a lot of bureaucracy involved. I think there needs to be a whole social revolution before curiosity driven research and a real push for understanding the world becomes a priority (particularly a financial one). The people up the top need to be convinced, because until then, drawing bright and curious minds into the field (as various and expansive as it is) subsist without their true potential being tapped.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,209 Posts
I think movies. When science becomes entertaining, it also becomes a conversation topic. Eventually the kids will catch on.
 
1 - 20 of 268 Posts
Top