Personality Cafe banner

261 - 271 of 271 Posts

·
Registered
ENTJ 7w8
Joined
·
4,954 Posts
Early start, and education starts at home: Developing an interest in science starts at the age of a child. Find a science topic your kid(s) like and help develop and foster that interest. While most children who show an early interest in science don't become scientists, instilling a sense of curiosity, rationality and imagination will help sustain an interest in science.

Schools need to teach it better: Not much to say here, but how well science is taught depends on where you live.

That's really all there is to it. I think athletes and celebrities will always be more admired than scientists, but a more educated populace will make science at least more appealing to the average person.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dare

·
Banned
Joined
·
253 Posts
The Advanced Placement prep guides should be the most comprehensive as you can get, at least for the "middle majority" rather than the "ringers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duaUJKBhd3Q

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51ygx8dBZWL._SX383_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

Ultimately, science is interesting, but increasing the popularity of it requires what Voltaire quotes on the age of reason, we're not there yet. The first step is to research psuedosciences quackery sciences and see why they have been suppressed, sometimes to the point of assassinations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
612 Posts
The Advanced Placement prep guides should be the most comprehensive as you can get, at least for the "middle majority" rather than the "ringers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duaUJKBhd3Q

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51ygx8dBZWL._SX383_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

Ultimately, science is interesting, but increasing the popularity of it requires what Voltaire quotes on the age of reason, we're not there yet. The first step is to research psuedosciences quackery sciences and see why they have been suppressed, sometimes to the point of assassinations.
Pseudosciences are firstly and foremost pseudosciences because they fail to address a strict methodology of experimentations reviewed by peers. Basically, it's often practically impossible to know what they do. It's not to say they don't do anything, it's we don't know what they do.

The second problem of pseudosciences is that they don't take into account the first point, and thus continue to act while not passing under the screen of a methodology of experimentations. Often because when they do, we see how useless and poor, and even how bad they are. I didn't check for every pseudosciences, as it is case by case, but homeopathy went through the screen of a lot of methodology of experimentations and failed to prove that it has any more use than a placebo.

From there to suppress a pseudoscience which could have been proven to be a pseudoscience, or a pseudoscience where the practitioners have systematically refused to pass their practice under the screen of a strict methodology of experimentations reviewed by peers, is a good and moral thing to do.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
253 Posts
Pseudosciences are firstly and foremost pseudosciences because they fail to address a strict methodology of experimentations reviewed by peers. Basically, it's often practically impossible to know what they do. It's not to say they don't do anything, it's we don't know what they do.

The second problem of pseudosciences is that they don't take into account the first point, and thus continue to act while not passing under the screen of a methodology of experimentations. Often because when they do, we see how useless and poor, and even how bad they are. I didn't check for every pseudosciences, as it is case by case, but homeopathy went through the screen of a lot of methodology of experimentations and failed to prove that it has any more use than a placebo.

From there to suppress a pseudoscience which could have been proven to be a pseudoscience, or a pseudoscience where the practitioners have systematically refused to pass their practice under the screen of a strict methodology of experimentations reviewed by peers, is a good and moral thing to do.
I will call you a Crab or istj, or My own ad hominem attack.

Psuedo science is just a way of saying "you must memorize, obey, and take the sodium fluoride toothpaste or be declared insane and paranoid!"

Raw milk and blue ice fermented cod liver oil , blood type diet, could be what you call ******science.

Keep your apples to yourself. I love health products that are sold by naturopaths, homeopaths.

What about some furniture arrangement system like feng shui, surely Donald Trump has used it. Lol. Ok i agree feng shui is pseudoscience.

I will defend the blood type diet, the cancer curing method developed by max gerson, they work!



Sent from my SM-J337T using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
67 Posts
and I have no idea why they're so hostile towards it, why they don't find it interesting
It's hard to believe, isn't it? It is something that I cannot understand either, many people repel the search for understanding as if it were a deadly poison. I try to assimilate that we all have different interests, but ... honestly I think that deep down I do not fully accept it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
67 Posts
What, in your opinion, needs to be done in order to make Science more interesting to society in general?
I'm also interested in science dissemination; however, I think that if you have to exaggerate the way you present science in order to make it pleasant to people or make a great effort to convince, then you are setting a scenario that will collapse sooner or later.

As @Ti Dominant has said:

[…] People have different interests, so you won't ever attract everyone to science by merely changing your promotion strategies or tactics. […] 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.
People who have a true interest in science are few compared to those who are not, and it is a fact that we will have to accept. I think that, as @sprinkles has rightly said, there is a "maturity" that has to be developed, those who are genuinely interested in science may be able to develop it.

I think the best thing we can do (and we should focus our efforts on this) is:

1. Help those who show a genuine interest in science, to develop this "scientific maturity" that has been discussed.

2. Rooting scientific thinking from childhood and involving children in science.


How can we attract people away from brainless reality television and worshipping celebrity, and towards more fulfilling subjects like Science?
I think there is not much to do here. Unfortunately most of those who are involved in this shit are there by their own choice.

As @AkiKaza said:

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
·
67 Posts
Hi @Harrt56 !

It is a metaphor. Sorry if my message isn't clear due to bad writing. I'm not an English speaker and I still find it difficult to notice some faults (if you have any observations to make about it I'll appreciate it)

If it isn't a wording problem, then I'll try to be clearer:

What I mean is that you can talk about science with a lot of passion or show very visual experiments like Tesla coils (for example). This may convince many people to get involved in science, but in the end most of them are going to be "disenchanted" soon. This initial "fascination" wouldn't happen if you only show the theory from the beginning, which in the end is the core of science.

Few people are truly interested and enthusiastic about knowing the principle of operation behind what is at a glance. When I say "setting a scenario" (setting up a stage), I'm referring specifically to the act of "beautifying" or "adorning" the way you present science. When I say "will collapse", I mean the disenchantment mentioned above.

Please let me know if it's understandable this time, I'll explain as many times as necessary.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,088 Posts
TBH I'm not under the impression that science needs to become more popular.

First of all, we wouldn't have this amount of technology in our daily lives if there weren't many people interested in practicing science, but apart from all the actual research that goes on, there are also entire industries dedicated to providing people who aren't scientists with information about what goes on in the field. Pop-science is huge, and while it has been popular for as long as I can remember, it seems to have become bigger than it ever was. I mean, most people know who Neil Degrasse Tyson is and all he really does is confuse Katy Perry for a living. He's like the official mascotte of science and such a job wouldn't exist if science wasn't immensely popular, at least as a concept.

In fact, I would go one step further and say that science holds too much authority, in the sense that the reverence for science among people who don't quite understand it can have dangerous side-effects. The problem is that not that many people outside of science have a thorough understanding of things like how difficult it can be to conceive a proper experiment, that data can be manipulated, etc. This is especially noticable in lesser pop-science outlets, where juicy headlines are being sold under the guise of "studies have shown that...", but when you actually read the reseach paper it's based upon, it's not at all uncommon that the researchers themselves were much more careful with their conclusions, and in the worst cases the conclusions drawn by the article don't actually follow from the data at all, or they're only cherry-picking the parts that suit their narrative. Meanwhile, it's being propagated as truth using the authority of the scientific method, and many people eat it up. Such confusion wouldn't occur if no one outside of science gave a fuck about it.

This mechanism is probably mostly unintentional, but it can also be intentionally abused for political or corporate purposes. I'll spare you my particular conspiracy theories, but when a corporation with a revenue in the billions are also funding scientific research that impacts what happens in their field of business, I reckon it's safe to say that not everybody involved in the chain of events between idea and data is impartial.
 
261 - 271 of 271 Posts
Top