…and this is a 
Travel day!
Category: Communicating science
Posted on: September 25, 2007 6:00 AM, by PZ Myers
I'm flying away today, on my way to New York to attend a little event honoring the winners of the second annual Seed science writing contest. This is really good stuff: the contestants tried to explain what it means to be scientifically literate in the 21st century, and make suggestions for improving scientific literacy for the future. The winners are Scientific Literacy and the Habit of Discourse by Thomas W. Martin and Camelot is Only a Model: Scientific Literacy in the 21st Century by Steven Saus — if you haven't read them yet, do so!
Comments
It's interesting that Martin gets a lot of students in his honors program who ace their advanced placement science tests yet believe in creationism. These are smart students who seem to lack the critical thinking skills to sort out fact from fiction. I blame the church, which fosters credulity in the absence of evidence and steadfastness in the face of contrary evidence. This is the opposite of the scientific mind set.
Posted by: Charley | September 25, 2007 8:28 AM
This was the random quote displayed next to Martin's comment when I read it. It kinda says it all.
"In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination."
[Mark Twain]
Hopefully by becoming scientists the critical thinking skills that they by force must acquire will spill over into the compartment of their minds that has been clogged by their unnecessary religious baggage.
Posted by: Fernando Magyar | September 25, 2007 9:14 AM
I'm curious what neurobiology (or more likely psychology) tells us about how difficult it is to reject things learned from authority figures in one's extremely formative years. How likely is it that Fernando's hope will actually come true, in the light of how difficult it is to displace these early formed "beliefs."
As a former science teacher, one thing we learn is that early experimentation by children creates some misconceptions about the natural world. To truly teach them something, we must first show them WHY and HOW their misconception is wrong, and then show them the proper way to interpret their observations and learn the new, accurate rule.
But these misconceptions about natural phenomena aren't based on blind faith, or indoctrination, they were based on the child's own observations. Our animal brains are so strongly set up in our early years to follow our parents and elders, do what they do and listen to what they say, lest we die before we make it reproduction (that's a strong selective force). How hard is that to overcome with observation, questioning and rationality... especially when those things necessarily don't come until much later (when a child has left the sphere of their immediate and equally indoctrinated community).
As in most other things, I'm not too optimistic about our chances.
And off topic, I was infuriated yesterday when I saw two "id" books on the science shelf at B&N... right next to all the actual science.
Posted by: Nutmeg | September 25, 2007 10:14 AM
I thought that the winner was suggesting that the outspoken atheists, Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, Myers, etc., were too bombastic.
Well, we're all allowed opinions, but it's a shame that that one helped get the first prize. I don't think that we can be too outspoken. Nonsense is religion is nonsense, period.
Posted by: Richard Harris, FCD | September 25, 2007 10:30 AM
Damn! That should've been..."Religion is nonsense, period".
Posted by: Richard Harris, FCD | September 25, 2007 10:49 AM
Richard,
/Nonsense is religion is nonsense, period./
I thought you were just in a Gertrude Stein mode. I rather liked it.
Posted by: Jsn | September 25, 2007 10:53 AM
Nutmeg,
Your comment made me think of a recent review paper I read in Science - it seems to mesh so well with what you're saying that I wonder if you've already read it.
The absract:
You say:
While Bloom and Weisberg refer to studies which show that:
and other examples demonstrate how such misconceptions can persist into adulthood if not challenged.
If you can't get access to the article let me know - my email address is on my blog page - and I can probably send you a copy of it
Posted by: artificialhabitat | September 25, 2007 11:04 AM
Richard:
I got that impression as well - from a couple of comments at the end.
and
A couple of cheap shots, which didn't really add anything useful to the essay. Should have been left out.
Posted by: artificialhabitat | September 25, 2007 11:08 AM
I think it had more to do with this
than with Dawkins, Dennett, Myers, et al.
Posted by: MyaR | September 25, 2007 11:31 AM
I haven't read the Martin book so perhaps those who have read it have more information to share about his claims. In the linked article, I didn't see the "acerbic exchanges" among "scientific celebrities" as having anything to do with atheism. After all, Steve Gould, Richard Lewontin, Dawkins and E.O. Wilson all said some pretty pointed things to each other on matters that in no way touched on the existence of god.
Also, Hitchens is a political writer and Dennett is a philosopher. So I don't know that they count as "scientific celebrities."
Posted by: fardels bear | September 25, 2007 11:41 AM
Yes, possibly I've put the wrong interpretation on this. I've not read the essay, just a report on it, & this is probably mangled in my memory.
Can we have a definitive statement on this from someone? (I'm too busy to search for the entire essay....sorry.)
Posted by: Richard Harris, FCD | September 25, 2007 12:22 PM
Science educators have a difficult role in our society because as our knowledge goes forward and new details emerge constantly, they have to teach that which is still being discovered or is not fully understood. I like what the second placed winner (Steven Saus) had to say.
"The edifice of science is not in danger of crumbling; it is under constant renewal. Each generation's orthodoxy was the prior's heresy. Many commonly-accepted "facts"--plate tectonics, quantum mechanics, birds' relation to dinosaurs, the Big Bang, RNA's role in the cell, punctuated equilibrium, global climate change, good and bad cholesterol--were extremely controversial not so long ago. And the process continues, with ongoing challenges to accepted models both in their details and in their broad brushstrokes."
I also liked what the first place winner (Thomas W. Martin) says.
"The reason science does manage to be astonishingly effective is not because large groups are automatically wiser or less prone to self-deception than individuals. History adequately demonstrates that, if anything, the opposite is more nearly the case. 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."
I think diversity of thought is healthy for science and science education in general and educators and scientists need not worry if students hold to various philosophies. The idea is not to suppress certain types of thinking. Thinking outside the box has its place.
Posted by: Louise Van Court | September 25, 2007 1:19 PM
I'm just a little bit shocked myself that a college in good standing would back up students who insist that people who have been through college and have a master's degree, a couple actually, have to teach that there were such things as talking snakes or lose their job
Thought I'd give ya something to make you angry, maybe getting this around will help drum enough support to help this poor man.
Love.
Potter.
Posted by: Potter | September 25, 2007 1:24 PM
Where is the scientific evidence that a machine world can produce a creature that can create a free will?
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | September 25, 2007 3:41 PM
Reginald Selkirk @ #13 - Emergent Properties. Next!
Posted by: Richard Harris, FCD | September 25, 2007 3:59 PM
Richard Harris, FCD: thanks. I have myself have trouble answering questions which are incoherent.
Council of Europe to vote on creationism next week
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | September 25, 2007 4:17 PM
First it was the banana, and now its the jar of peanut butter!
PZ, I know you (and everyone else) will have a field day with this one.
Posted by: Shawn Wilkinson | September 25, 2007 4:21 PM
I wonder what the psychological development from ignorance to intellect is. Maybe it is something like the Cross's theory of nigrescence - http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MJU/is_3_9/ai_94639401/pg_2 (see below the big, square advert)
If so, perhaps a lot of ignorant people jump from preencounter to immersion. The consequence, of course, being that they don't know what they need to have the right kind of intellect. Of course, this jump might be as a result of going through a similar development in different areas, such as religion.
Posted by: Mike Fox | September 25, 2007 4:36 PM
Oh, man, and this on the day when Bill O'Reilly decides to shoot himself in the foot.
Figures.
Posted by: MikeM | September 25, 2007 5:25 PM
I'm pretty sure our library has access to Science... I mean.. I've never looked... but really.. it's Science.
I haven't read that abstract... I am just repeating what I learned in my teaching science in secondary school courses (oh.. .. 6 years ago now). I'll definitely look up what Science has to say on the matter... much thanks.
(apologies for all typing and grammar errors.. irritated 9 month old in lap)
Posted by: Nutmeg | September 25, 2007 5:58 PM
Ninjas on the loose. Hide the women and children.
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | September 25, 2007 6:02 PM
Those were all great links, Potter, Reginald, Shawn, and MikeM.
I propose a new theme song for such inanities.
Gentle Rationalists, I present The English Beat's "March of the Drivelheads".
Posted by: Brownian | September 25, 2007 6:32 PM
if you have time to swing by the AMNH and need someone to let you in, drop me a line! All my contact info is over on my website.
Posted by: samuel | September 25, 2007 7:19 PM
mikeM, I'm certainly no fan of the raving loon, but there appears to be some dispute as to what he actually said in this case:
Posted by: ichthyic | September 25, 2007 8:52 PM
Reginald Selkirk @ #14 - Where is the evidence that free will is a coherent concept which actually exists?
Posted by: SteveC | September 25, 2007 10:56 PM
Uh-oh.
A community college instructor in Red Oak claims he was fired after he told his students that the biblical story of Adam and Eve should not be literally interpreted.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007709220333
Posted by: CalGeorge | September 25, 2007 11:15 PM
#17 WRT the peanut butter jar....
I have a hypothesis that proto-life (macromolecules) happen frequently and regularly where the elements are present. We don't notice them because they fall into the background noise of other things like amino acids or are consumed by bacteria.
The reason we don't have to worry too often about peanut butter is that even the most basic pathogens are highly evolved entities. That is why PB has a limited shelf life.
BTW, PZ is a lucky lucky man to have such trips. I'm waiting for an email detailing my future from Schlumberger and I know that any future location will be a real hole in the wall, middle of nowhere assignment. Hopefully my free time will include the occasional opportunity to attend a Long Now S.A.L.T. seminar.
Posted by: wildcardjack | September 26, 2007 12:16 AM
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | September 26, 2007 10:33 AM
Beautiful essays, they bring a tear to my eye.
To do our part in promoting scientific discourse the Bayblab (a Canadian graduate student blog) is calling for nominees for the First Annual "Socrates" Awards - The Bayblab Awards for Scientific Discourse. Please visit and post your nominees. We need to hear from you! Neither Dawkins or Hitch have been nominated yet...
http://bayblab.blogspot.com/2007/09/submit-your-nominees-for-socrates_27.html
Thanks for your input!
-Bayman
Posted by: bayman | September 27, 2007 1:36 PM