Personality Cafe banner

How to increase the popularity of Science?

59K views 289 replies 202 participants last post by  Oaktree 
#1 ·
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?
 
#69 ·
For starters.. science has to be in your blood.

Just like artists and athletes, you need to have a knack for what you do.
Once you find out that you're good at something, you automatically start to like it and develop your skills.

For example, I don't have much affinity with (visual) art.
I can't paint, I'm a bad drawer and I really can't create sculptures.
So it pretty obvious that I'm not a born artist like Rembrand, van Gogh or Monet.

However, I do have a knack for exploring, math, physics and chemistry.
For some people it may look like a bunch of "hocus pokus" (in the same way painting is a mystery for me).
So naturally, science is a lot more appealing to me then art is.


IMO, the difference lies in how the eventual creations of science can benefit someone.
Nobody thinks about how an Iphone works, how the tires of your car are made or what happens when you strike a match... let alone stand what happens during a supernova, the physical laws of black holes and the processes inside the sun's core.. the very source of our existence, survival and eventually our demise.
Through the centuries, scientists made a lot of inventions and discoveries and "gave" them to society.. who really doesn't care how it works, as long as it works.
A lot of people don't think science is interresting, because they have other people to do that for them, they don't like to bother with formulas and calculations.

For some reason, the papers felt the need to publish articles about Paris Hilton's new dog, bad things about Muslims and riots in Greece.. but I Hardly read anything about the possible breaking of the lightbarrier on the frontpages.

I guess that every kind of person needs something to look up to... but for some, that thing is more complicated then others.
 
#70 ·
Replace all church Sunday school for children with Sunday science school, where kids can learn about much more fun things that the bible. That and replace all commercials on kids channels with science. The fact is that from an early age kids are taught to care about their desires and their friends, but not about information and thinking. Who says a three year old can't learn simple math? Who says no kid would be interested in science at the age of 5? I say we should teach them early. Before kids can talk we should expose them to toys that promote critical thinking, like toy blocks. And, other than language, math should be top priority for early education. However, math can expand into areas like music, so really music is essential as well. I think science should also be top priority, case and point is the American disbelief in evolution. How dare our society sensor the truth in schools! We ought to teach concepts like evolution, gravity, ect. that are easy to understand to kids at an early age, and give them every tool available to expand their knowledge if they so choose. Our schooling needs refocusing, I believe math/science should be at the same level as literature and should be taught just as much. Most of the time, that doesn't happen.
 
#73 ·
...
As the television displays images of comedic failure and that goofy amateur humor portrayed through modern society's idea of cartoons, more idealistic approaches could be made. I always watched the sci-fi channel as a growing child, in which increased my ambition to transcend reality and innovate concepts that raise our sense of understanding. If we showed extraordinary and supernatural scenarios with such intrigue, we may be able to sink into the minds of our younglings and convince them at the very basis of there lives that there are greater things to pursue in life than what is commonly associated. We must spark interest in society's sense of curiosity and views of science. Maybe we can show those weird nazi science projects in educational videos.
 
#74 ·
It's a hard task to increase the popularity of a skill that has a reputation for dramatically reducing your chances of getting laid. Perhaps a calendar featuring attractive scientists in swimsuits could help to reverse this perception?
 
#75 ·
I used to be excessively interested in science, and was doing the pre-med program at a top-notch college. Then I took an arrow to the knee...


But no, I felt like I learned a lot (not about science, but why I find it to be unnecessarily difficult to learn compared to other subjects) from that class alone. Whenever I would ask a question, I almost felt like I was ridiculed for not understanding the material, and a LOT of colleges use 'weed-out' classes, which I do think they are necessary to an extent, but more than half of the class failed, and we all studied our asses off just trying to pass that class.
I didn't necessarily understand what was the point of learning what we did in the first place...it was a lot of theories, and we didn't necessarily talk about the basics of chemistry, and just skipped ahead to theories of what would happen to an electron if we were on a parallel universe planet or something really obscure. Even my mother (the chemistry major) commented on one of my exams 'This isn't chemistry, wtf kind of class are you taking?'

In short, it wasn't a fit learning environment, and I think that it is like that in a lot of places. Also, I didn't feel like I was learning the basics (which I feel like I should've been learning in the first place before we got to theories), so what could you go off of? Personally, I would probably even be interested in going into medical school still, because you're practicing what you're learning and it will become of use in your career.
 
#76 ·
I had a conversation with Kevin Shortt about science education earlier this month. He is very passionate about educating people about the Canadian space industry, specifically how it's not as important to talk about astronauts or even the Canadian arm, as it is to talk about the research they do and their ability to turn them into practical applications on Earth. There's so much more practical stuff that the astronauts aren't involved in that it's unreal: government funding and policy, using radar stats to monitor the extraction of Alberta sands, CSA RADARSAT-1 Disaster Watch, etc. (not enough posts to post links yet, sorry!) The space technology is out there helping out people every day.

This is what's cool in the Canadian space industry. This is stuff that Canadians don't know about and should be proud of. We don't have Mars exploration rovers or probes going to Venus or things like that, but this practical stuff on Earth is the bleeding edge technology that countries around the world turn to Canada for. We have our work cut out to make this stuff cool and in the news; not just the robotic arm and things like that.
 
#77 ·
I think most of it comes down to having important authority figures in life that are interested in science themselves, and like to teach. My father also enjoyed having deep conversations with me about physics and the like, and bought me good physics books when I was very young. Teachers at school however seem to be limited quite a bit by curriculum, which may prevent them from teaching what the students need or are interested in. It is a struggle that is seen in every industry: how to balance between governments, who are working to ensure that at least some standard of quality is met, and individuals who should be able to reapply the standards as needed.
 
#78 ·
Do you want more scientists, particulary, capable scientists? Or just make science more popular, as in having better social status?

If it is the former, forget it. You either have a thirst for it, or you dont't. The amount of effort it requires to be good at it can only come from the inside, not external reasons.

If it is about social standing, it is all about having visible figures that are also sociable, cool, fun and far from the nerdy stereotypes. People that realize laymen do not want to be taught, just entertained first and maybe taught second if it doesnt require too much inmediate effort and going out of your way. If it requires effort, it should come from the inside.

Market more people like Brian Cox and Neil deGrasse Tyson (youtube them).
 
#80 ·
The answer to this question is simple, just put INTPs in charge of creating the school curriculum, you know, instead of those who have the ability to achieve good jobs high up in the education system, but when it actually comes to deciding the fundamentals of what and how children should be taught, simply pick and choose what children need to know, then ignore the reasons knowledge is remembered and stored for long term use.

If it was me, my first plan of action would be to perform reseach into these fields to ensure teachers were not wasting there time teaching things that is going in one ear and out the other!
 
#82 ·
Some people are naturally drawn towards science anyway. Why does everybody need to be interested in it? Wheras yes, I find it incredibly fascinating to learn about physics, I accept that a lot of people think it's not enjoyable. I like it because it explains things about the world, not because it's 'fun' and immediately gratifying.
 
#86 ·
It all depends on math, when mathematics is made easy and fun there will also be more scientists. And to make math more accessible for the big crowd it needs to lose it's abstract and rigorous nature (atleast in high school and lower). The idea's and concepts have to be taught in a more intuitive, creative and visual way. So I mean without the semi-unreadable gibberish in math symbols.
I do know a lot of mathematicians would be horrified by this thought but it's the way most people can grasp it.
 
#90 ·
Change the institution in which the children are taught, and you change the way they look at learning.

Categorizing children into groups based upon age, rank and file is old and boring. Who wants to learn when they're forced to sit, and told what to know instead of asking what they'd like to know? Kids are naturally curious. They want to learn. But, then they're all put into a mold that not every child is suited to.

Children should not be taught by generalized educators who have some knowledge in some areas, and expert knowledge in others.

They should be expert enthusiasts in their fields, who know and want to work with children. You wanna teach a kid math? Get somebody who loves math, is good at it, and loves kids.

The environment should be open, and children should get to discuss things, ask questions, and learn from each other. And not just get told.
 
#91 ·
Public laboratories.

Like a library, you could just walk in and use or check out expensive experimental equipment.

Science isn't popular because it's too inaccessible, most people need to see that a theory is true through their own hands-on experimentation, they can't just read textbooks about it, they need to make it relevant to their real life.

It doesn't help that all the fun science is illegal too, why can't I make explosives from scratch, I'm a responsible citizen? :tongue:
 
#92 ·
Actually, a man named Pythagoras has done that exact same thing, but with math. The wonders they have discovered at the time made it a golden age of math, you can imagine how many hairs were pulled when they discovered things like irrational numbers and similar concepts.

/watch?v=HlBA9_3zj9w

The more you know.
 
#97 ·
Well, first off, math and science is made too boring in our schools.
I was lucky enough to go to both a private and a public school in my school years, and I have to say public schools are boring.

I was so lucky in the private school I went to because I had a teacher who actually cared and made science fun. She did fun experiments and made us think outside the box. Along with competitive quizzes and possible extra credit every week by bringing in and presenting news or articles about breaking edge science in which we would have to present and explain in front of the class.

However, on a mass scale, I don't see how we could all get teachers like that.
 
#98 ·
If teachers were given better pay and if American society were rewired to view it as a respectable career then you wouldn't have to hire out of the uninspired bottom third of college graduates to teach the next generation. It's absolutely pitiful.

addendum: the whole "nerd" bashing aspect of such a culture very much plays into this as well... One of the few reasons America can keep afloat in spite of this is by intellectual immigrants coming in without such a negative view of skilled work/intellectualism
 
#99 ·
Shows like Grey's Anatomy definitely works, it seems. Scientists have a soul, maybe (haha) even a life! 'Kay, doctors/surgeons may not necessarily be scientists, but they're geeks, and medicine can't function without science.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: JourneyOfMystery
#100 ·
I think part of the aversion towards science stems from propagated stereotypes, which in turn comes from a misunderstanding of what science is and attempts to do. Science "happens" behind closed doors. Concepts of research are not widely understood by the general populace if people are diverging away from science or not well-versed in the differences in terminology between what scientists use and what society uses.
I remember reading a published article last year about how children are essentially "mini-scientists". The skills required to succeed in this field are all innate skills that we have used early on in life to learn about the world and our surroundings. As we grow, these skills' development requires the proper environment and positive reinforcement that encourage people to venture out and critically think about things. In my opinion, while targeting the younger generation is a key move to effectively correct the misconceptions about science, we can't ignore the older generation (parents, teachers, etc.) as they will have a significant contribution to the developing perceptions. I think it would be a lot better if we introduced the logic behind and the application of the scientific method before introducing facts from various disciplines for students to memorize. The early on people grasp what science is attempting to do and also learning the skills/terminology required, the better they understand how to interpret the loads of information presented. We should explain the various factors that do influence research (politics, religion, economy, etc.), and introduce a better way to detect and deal with such cases instead of dubbing the whole field "a conspiracy". Critical thinking is key.
 
#101 ·
You can't force people to magically become interested in things they're genuinely not interested in. However, I can definitely think of a multitude of reasons as to why science isn't exactly popular:

- Modern Western society. We live in a culture that values instant gratification and constant stimulation over patience and analytical thinking. Consumption and gluttony over production and discovery. Stereotypes and black and white thinking over research and understanding. So naturally, the sciences don't normally attract the attention of the masses.

- Religion. Religion became outdated the moment science and rationality took over our intellectual zeitgeist, yet we still cling to religion and "God" as our guiding light (particularly in the US), and we snicker like children at evolution and natural selection, as our elders taught us that the gradual adaptation of species is absolutely laughable in comparison to the far more reasonable and enlightening theory of "God did it." Thus, science in general is failing to garner mainstream popularity in the US.

- Science doesn't care about being popular. In the ongoing search for understanding, being "cool" and "hip" becomes negligible, and scientists don't feel much need to strive for popularity. As a result, science hasn't achieved much mainstream popularity, barring a stunning discovery, invention or breakthrough.

Of course, science is somewhat popular in certain circles and can even be considered "cool". I don't care too much for that though. Neil DeGrasse Tyson is an astrophysicist, not a celebrity or rock star.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top