Predicting future trends is hard but before we do we should ask what we mean with losing science or scientific literacy.
I think a straightforward definition of scientific literacy in a case like global warming would to see whether or not an individual read at least part of the IPCC report. Global warming is an important topic, so it makes sense to inform yourself by reading what the most authoritative source has to say on the issue.
I think a lot of scientists fail that test but that they instead get an impression of what the IPCC report says from secondary sources.
If you ask me we don’t live in a time where the average person has a lot of scientific literacy. A few people do read meta-studies on a regular basis to increase their understanding of reality but the average person doesn’t.
It also important to keep in mind that our present idea of science with placebo-controlled trials is difference from the idea of science that existed 100 hears ago. We progressed. LW rationality of doing what increases chances of winning is different than rationality that existed 100 years ago.
We are not at the pinnacle of human knowledge and the kind of scientific literacy that will exist in 100 years is going to be different from the kind that exists at the moment. It’s hard to say how it will be different. I doubt most people 100 years ago would have thought that placebo controlled trials became as central to our idea of science as they did become.
Instead of trying to defend scientific literacy as it is, it’s better to focus on developing it and making it richer. That means having a culture where more people read primary literature. It also means things like Ben Goldacre’s crusade for the opening of clinical trial data. Putting more energy into reproducible scientific results.
I think those fights are much more central for the future of science then the fight against anti-science folks.
Actually ‘fighting anti-science’ folk may make mattres worse.
Keeping creationism out of science classes takes a certain fight. That’s a worthwhile fight and it’s useful when some pro-science people fight it out.
The fight will angers some religious people but it’s still worthwhile.
On the other hand the fight with external groups shouldn’t take most of the resources. Keeping your own house in order is much more important than winning against other groups.
Predicting future trends is hard but before we do we should ask what we mean with losing science or scientific literacy.
I think a straightforward definition of scientific literacy in a case like global warming would to see whether or not an individual read at least part of the IPCC report. Global warming is an important topic, so it makes sense to inform yourself by reading what the most authoritative source has to say on the issue. I think a lot of scientists fail that test but that they instead get an impression of what the IPCC report says from secondary sources.
If you ask me we don’t live in a time where the average person has a lot of scientific literacy. A few people do read meta-studies on a regular basis to increase their understanding of reality but the average person doesn’t.
It also important to keep in mind that our present idea of science with placebo-controlled trials is difference from the idea of science that existed 100 hears ago. We progressed. LW rationality of doing what increases chances of winning is different than rationality that existed 100 years ago.
We are not at the pinnacle of human knowledge and the kind of scientific literacy that will exist in 100 years is going to be different from the kind that exists at the moment. It’s hard to say how it will be different. I doubt most people 100 years ago would have thought that placebo controlled trials became as central to our idea of science as they did become.
Instead of trying to defend scientific literacy as it is, it’s better to focus on developing it and making it richer. That means having a culture where more people read primary literature. It also means things like Ben Goldacre’s crusade for the opening of clinical trial data. Putting more energy into reproducible scientific results.
I think those fights are much more central for the future of science then the fight against anti-science folks.
Actually ‘fighting anti-science’ folk may make mattres worse.
But improving broad scientific literacy seem to me as an effective means to prevent anti-science memes which might be exploited for political reasons.
Keeping creationism out of science classes takes a certain fight. That’s a worthwhile fight and it’s useful when some pro-science people fight it out.
The fight will angers some religious people but it’s still worthwhile.
On the other hand the fight with external groups shouldn’t take most of the resources. Keeping your own house in order is much more important than winning against other groups.