(1) I think that the manipulation of science and scientists for political gain in recent times is well documented. Recent prominent examples include the Bush administration’s manipulation of reports, pressure put on scientists, and so forth, in connection to issues of global warming. See the press and numerous discussions.

(2) I think that the culture certainly encourages people to stop asking “why” and “how” questions. For one thing, it is so much easier to tow the line and just accept. For another, the sorts of people who are celebrated for asking questions are often painted as outsiders almost by definition. For a third, our education system tends to emphasize training in analytic thinking less strongly than perhaps it should, partly because it is easier to set a test on a list of facts than it is to set a test on someone’s ability to reason and question in a constructive way. I could go on, but I think this is also well-documented.

I never said that it is “just” the culture. Life is complicated, and things seldom have a single reason. I think that the culture plays a large part, however.

Best,

-cvj

So would you say that we as the public are being blinded by their science talk so that they can gain political leverage?

and you made some interesting points earlier about how the scientist tendencies are beaten out of us..But is ther some intrinsic reason why adults stop asking the ‘whys’ and the ‘hows’?

I dont think it is just the culture which is to blame but there is some other reason. What do you think about that?

“I think you’re awesome. Keep it that way.”

No pressure, then! Could I have the occasional day of being sub-awesome? Seriously though, I’m glad that you like reading the blog and get a lot out of it.

Best,

-cvj

When we met, we had a fairly engaging conversation (the subject of which is long-forgotten), and the one thing I (physically) took away from the conversation was your blog website, printed neatly on a USC napkin. Since I discovered the joys of a feed reader, your blog has keep me entertained and inspired. (Apologies if this sounds stalker-ish.) What really keeps me hooked is the fact that you live your life how I’d want mine to be someday.

All this basically boils down to me saying: I think you’re awesome. Keep it that way.

p.s. Guess what? I’m a scientist, too!

I’ve noticed that since I’m a librarian, I’m always try to *share* things with others. It occurred to me that you might enjoy reading Julius Lester’s blog, A Commonplace Book. He write’s children’s books, so there’s a chance you haven’t encountered it. The main address is: http://acommonplacejbl.blogspot.com/

The post which I thought of when I read “Don’t wait for it to get better - participate!” is called “Doing Good is Hard Work.” I’m planning to use a quote from it when I put together a display on recycling. The most recent post which I’ve found myself telling people about–an obvious sign that I need to tag it in del.icio.us–is called “African Orphans–The New Toys?”

Thank you for the thought-provoking talk yesterday as well as your answer to my question on what attitude we must adopt when science is in disagreement with faith (as in evolution versus ID). I am a grad student in the Department of Biomedical Engineering. These are more questions related to the participation theme. Here are two dilemmas that may face an amateur science popularizer:

1. How much of modern science can be introduced with qualitative arguments in a non-mathematical way? How much ‘dilution’ is permissible to make science accessible to the lay reader? There are purists who would argue that the only way to understand physics is mathematically, and trying to do so any other way would only mean humouring ourselves. They would say that all useful analogies get misleading after a stage and any person introduced to physics through these would have at best a half-baked understanding worse than ignorance. They would say, “If the only way to make it understood is through the math, so be it! Let us not trivialize and oversimplify in the name of popularization!”.

How would you suggest a balance between quantitative rigour and qualitative approaches to science popularization? How do you respond to accusations of dumbing down?

2. Popular science books like those by Fritjof Capra, or Chaos by James Gleick speak of the raging debate between ‘reductionism’ and ‘holism’. They argue that the reductionistic route modern science has taken, involving defining a plethora of elementary particles and investing millions in supercolliders is somewhat divorced from useful everyday science. Instead they would like the energies of scientists to be directed more towards ’systems’ approaches dealing with emergent behavior, ecosystems and other topics seemingly more engaged with civilizational concerns.
On the other hand, there are those whose mantra is ‘Go molecular! Leave the bulk to the rest.” Things are however not this simple, because as I heard in a recent seminar at USC, there is no such thing as turbulent flow in nanofluidic systems; though it is most common in fluid systems in the engineering scale!

What do you think is the direction science popularization initiatives should take: take the reductionistic route and capture audience’s imagination by talk of outlandishly named particles to get them interested; or take a holistic route and immediately recruit audiences to causes like green science? Which approach according to you is primary and which is complementary?

In a way, there are three big questions 1) science vs religious belief 2) quantitative vs qualitative 3) reductionistic vs holistic. Your considered views on all these will be helpful to readers who would like to function as science popularizers in their own small communities. In fact posts like yours can be compiled into a ‘Handbook for Science Popularizer’ some day!

There was a very generous comment from Arun, a Chemistry graduate student here at USC. It is here.

Thanks both of you!

-cvj