This has got me thinking about whether we should try to engage these people, who’ve apparently gotten along just fine without their own science knowledge, in a modicum of science literacy training, and if so, exactly how do we do it? It is highly unlikely that any book of this length would do it. How about daily high interest excerpts sent by text message? Haha!

Even if it were fruitless (just tied into your fruit analogy by accident!) to reach these people, we certainly don’t want the majority of a technologically advanced nation’s population to function at this level, so I believe this is a very valid reason for doing outreach to children, while we can still capture their attention! So, why don’t we give this book to a teacher or two!

Joanne

Well, I’m glad you got and liked the book. Perhaps that is all that matters.

-cvj

You pretty much made that up out of whole cloth.

First, my apologies for being careless with words. I didn’t intend to take that position. But I bought the book today and I was reading it in the train coming back home and I think it is a nice book. So thanks for posting it.

I was dedicated not to like the book but she mentions several ideas that I thought were interesting. One is, probably you and others here already know this, or something like it, but she relates a story attributed to Feynman where the civilization is annihilated and you are the only surviving human and you will have to decide which discovery to save for future generations so that humans could recover their civilization. She calls this “post-apocalypse reconstruction.” This human survivor would need to reduce the entire human civilization to one idea or algorithm or formula. What is your response to this? What about other readers? Would a scientist or a “man in the street” could make the right decision here?

She starts the book by mentioning how her nephews graduated from science museum and the zoo to “refined forms of entertainment” like art museums and theater. I thought this was so interesting. In our society science is considered an activity for children!

So thanks once again, I recommend the book. Although it was 30 bucks, not as you mentioned the price of a couple of flavored coffee drinks.

And anyway, what on earth (or anywhere else) is “theoretical knowledge”?!

I checked google definitions and surprisingly I found only one definition for theoretical knowledge and I did not agree with it. I can only sketch briefly what I believe theoretical knowledge is. So this is my opinion and it is a generalization of Observed minus Computed method used in astronomy and in all sciences. I think knowledge is the error. O-C process is the only way we can know. I would say that if both observed and computed are computed then we are dealing with theoretical knowledge. Or if the error somehow contains terms which are not in the observed or computed, again, that would be theoretical knowledge.

Thanks.

Is understanding a few basic facts about inheritance, and/or the role of DNA in our everyday biology, perhaps the very idea of genetic diseases…. is that “theoretical knowledge” (whatever the hell that means) or, what for you seems to be the opposite, “practical knowledge”? What about understanding the possible multiple roles that the carbon dioxide we all produce (directly or indirectly) has in our everyday lives… is that “theoretical knowledge” or “practical knowledge”…?

Enlighten us here please.

-cvj

Not only in old Europe but even in this country today theoretical knowledge is considered to be the true knowledge, as opposed to useful and practical knowledge. So we tend to call people who are not literate ignorant. But this is not true.

cvj replies:

You pretty much made that up out of whole cloth. You’ve simply invented a non-existent position so that you can argue against it. How odd. If you tend to call people who are not literate ignorant, then please go ahead and tell yourself off, but it seems a bit strong to extrapolate your own behaviour to everyone else… And where in my post ,or in any of what Natalie Angier said in her interview, was lack of ordinary literacy (or for that matter, scientific literacy) equated with plain ignorance (in the broad and pejorative sense that I suspect you mean)?

And anyway, what on earth (or anywhere else) is “theoretical knowledge”?!

Cheers,

-cvj

Within the system we have now, getting a good publisher with an excellent distribution network is the best way to get your ideas out to the people you want to reach…..

And books still have more authority than online publishing. I tried to find the book at my lunch break but Barnes & Noble did not have it.

The publisher’s review at Amazon has this interesting quote:

“Angier’s writing can also be overadorned with extended metaphors that obscure rather than explain…”

It is the first time I read a publisher’s review which contains something critical (even mildly) of the book they are marketing. But it is nice that “she eloquently asks us to attend to the universe…”

I cannot blame you, I don’t understand my perspective either Any help would be appreciated! Looking at your site, though, I see that, your work is well defined and well focused on one topic, that must be nice.

I am not proud to be ignorant. I think that computers can be ignorant, you turn off a computer and it knows nothing. Humans are always on. Each individual’s knowledge is different but no one is really ignorant.

What I mean is that, consider Clifford mentioning above in his first comment the priests who controlled knowledge up to the time of the invention of the printing press. Those priests defined ignorance to be not knowing Latin. According to this definition 99 percent of population today would be ignorant.

Not only in old Europe but even in this country today theoretical knowledge is considered to be the true knowledge, as opposed to useful and practical knowledge. So we tend to call people who are not literate ignorant. But this is not true.

Of course, I am biased because I was lucky enough to meet him a few months back when he visited Auckland. It’s sort of hard to ever speak ill of anyone who encourages your plans to become a scientist/writer with more wholehearted enthusiasm than your actual aquaintences, saying that “the world needs more Carl Sagans.”

(For those wondering…. Carol is my sister, Zachary is my nephew!)

-cvj

And one last thing, the topic of this post is a book published by the Big Media. Why do I need to buy that book? Why doesn’t the author make it available freely online so that I can read it? Her goal is not to contribute to human knowledge but to sell books, it seems to me. So the Big Media is still controlling to great extent the flow of information.

With all due respect, that’s incredibly naive. The way things are set up now, if she had written the book and distributed it freely online, most people would never have heard of it. She’s going to reach a lot more people this way than what seems to be the “better”. Within the system we have now, getting a good publisher with an excellent distribution network is the best way to get your ideas out to the people you want to reach….. Furthermore, you’re saying that you would not acquire some knowledge and maybe a little entertainment or the price of a few lousily made cups of coffee-flavoured drinks?

Also, if I may…. it is not all or nothing. Nobody is saying that everyone should be fluent in all matters scientific, any more than everyone has read all the great works of literature, or has followed the politics of every country in the world. But is it that much of a stretch to ask for *some*? Nobody is asking that the general public know anything about “intricacies of physics theories such as string theory”…. but is it too much to ask that they know a few things about what science actually is, what the scientific process is, what some of the debates that affect them directly might be about?

I don’t think it is that much to ask. It’s not all or nothing. It is very achievable.

Cheers,

-cvj

There is a dilemma here I don’t know how to resolve. There is no time to get involved with all the issues you list. I have maybe 3 hours after work every day, and during that time I want to write an article for my blog. What is your attitude on this? Are you engaged with issues you list to your satisfaction?

One other comment that I may have is that since the time of printing press the relative literacy did not change. I cannot prove this as a scientific fact, but what happened was that, when workers moved from working the fields to manufacturing in the city they needed to have a minimum of literacy to do their jobs probably. And society allowed them to learn as much, not more. The professional classes stayed the same and they still control literacy. For example, by making some schools exclusive. So, when I compare myself to a peasant in the 17th century I am as ignorant as he was regarding scientific issues. I have no idea what human genome is, I don’t know intricacies of physics theories such as String theory and so on….

And one last thing, the topic of this post is a book published by the Big Media. Why do I need to buy that book? Why doesn’t the author make it available freely online so that I can read it? Her goal is not to contribute to human knowledge but to sell books, it seems to me. So the Big Media is still controlling to great extent the flow of information.

Same issue here….. why not just let the government (and its friends in the business world) get on with deciding policy that has anything to do with science. A few years down the road….How did our air get like this? Our water? Our energy policy? Our local transport infrastructure? Our health treatments… etc. Our rivers, streams, parks, oceans…Our environment……. Did we not trust these guys to take care of these issues for us, so we did not have to think about it?

-cvj