-
. SCIENCE AND THE PUBLIC^
THERE SEEMS TO BE a general agreement among scholars and
educatorstoday that general science education in the United States
has failedmiserably; that the feilure was accelerated during the
"do your own thing" ethosof the late '60s and early '70s. We should
consider carefully some aspects ofthe conduct of science and the
public's attitude toward it.
An understanding of the nature and processes of science is not
generally acces-sible to the public; it is itself esoteric
knowledge. Jon D. Miller, in the Spring1983 Daedalus, a special
issue devoted to scientific literacy, defined "the attentivepublic"
as "individuals interested in a particular policy area, and willing
tobecome and remain knowledgeable about the issue." (1) According
to a surveyconducted by the National Science Foundation, the
attentive public for sciencepolicy in 1979 constituted about 27
million adults, or about 18 percent of theadult population. Of this
number, according to a test of the understanding offundamental
concepts and issues administered by the NSF, approximately
70percent did not meet the minimal criteria for scientific
literacy. Stated moredirectly, the findings showed that a bare 5.4
percent of adults in the UnitedStates qualified as scientifically
literate. A more recent poll of "technologicalliteracy," also
conduaed by Miller and sponsored by the NSF, reported in
ScienceIndicators1985, showed large numbers of people expressing
"little" under-standing of certain basic technological concepts and
strong reliance on luck,alternative medicine, UFOs, and some other
occult-related indicators. Thisresearch has recently been published
in full. (2) Miller and others concludethat this situation is not
only nationally disgraceful but potentially dangerous.
Singer and Benassi conclude their important study of occult
beliefs byacknowledging the validity of various sociological and
psychological explana-tions, but asserting that a large share of
credit for the current popularity ofthe occult lies with science
education. (3) Their main conclusions are: 1)Science is taught as
an academic or clinical exercise, to be applied strictly within
*Editor oiNetv York Folklore, Phillips Stevens is an associate
professor of Anthropology, StateUniversity of New York, Buffalo,
N.Y.|This excerpt from "The Appeal of the Occult: Some Thoughts oti
History, Religion andScience," is from The Skeptical Inquirer Vol.
12, No. 4 and is reprinted with permission,
341
-
342 Etcetera WINTER 1988
the parameters of a particular classroom or laboratory project,
its specific proce-dures to be memorized by rote as part of the
particular package. Science is nottaught as a general "cognitive
tool" a way of reaching a deeper understandingof our environment.
2) "Many occult claims could be countered with even anelementary
knowledge of scientific facts, but even an elementary knowledgemay
be largely lacking." 3) Scientists themselves, by overstressing the
limita-tions of science and underplaying its achievements, have
contributed to a wide-spread impression that science is largely
subjective, vacillating, and able to assessonly clinically
measurable facts.
To these observations I will add some others: Science is
characterized by exceedingly narrow specializations. Scientists
come to know more and more about less and less. The avenues of
communication within science, and between scientists and
the public-except when scientists step outside their own areas
of expertise,as we shall see below-are extremely restricted.
Scientists tend to talk only toone another, generally within their
own disciplines, and in esoteric language.Very little of what they
communicate trickles down in terms comprehensibleto the lay public.
Gerald Holton, in a recent issue o^ Daedalus on Art andScience,
notes: "The thought processes and operations of both [science
andtechnology] have moved behind a dark curtain. There they have
taken on a newform of autonomy-isolated from the active
participation or real intellectualcontact of all but the highly
trained. Contrary to eighteenth-century expecta-tions, the
scientists are losing what should be their most discerning
audience,their wisest and most humane critics." (4)
There is usually a substantial lag, often years, between the
news of a scien-tific breakthrough and its application-if anyto
people's lives.
The two foregoing fectors contribute to the public's sense of
alienation fromscience and mistrust of it. William J. Broad, in a
recent New York Times reviewof Richard Rhodes's comprehensive The
Making of the Atomic Bomb (a bookI would recommend as part of a
remedial package for "the attentive public forscience policy")
points out the next logical danger:
All too often the moral drawn from the atomic saga and its
legacy of arms develop-ment is, simply put, that science can lead
to evil, and that since its temptationscannot be resisted, its
powers should be sharply constricted. (5)
Or take fluoridation of public drinking water in the 1950s, or
genetic engi-neering today.
Singer and Benassi have observed that science has become
packaged asan academic or clinical exercise and that the process of
empirical reasoningand the search for alternative explanations for
apparently mysteriousphenomena are not carried into the everyday
world as tests of empirical real-ity. (6) I would observe, further,
that this is a problem not only at the studentlevel; some
established scientists violate their own principles when they
stepinto other fields.
-
SCIENCE AND THE PUBLIC 343
The public has not the understanding to differentiate among
"scientists,"and an advanced degree or other distinction can become
acceptable qualifi-cation for making pronouncements beyond one's
area of expertise, e.g., LinusPauling and vitamin C, astronaut
James Irwin and the search for Noah's ark,and books on "creation
science" written by holders of doctorates in civil
engi-neering.
These are observations on the conduct of science, not criticisms
deservingof remedies, although some of them should certainly be
used as cautionary.A major scientific enterprise, such as the
manned space-flight program or AIDSresearch, is necessarily a
highly complex system, its pans at once rigidly com-partmentalized
and vitally interdependent. Its broad pyramidal base is virtu-ally
hidden from view, even probably from the purview of those at the
peakof the pyramid where the breakthrough takes place. And, of
course, the peakis illusory; it is not really there, and the
pyramidal structure of the whole enter-prise cannot be defined
until the breakthrough does occur. This is the natureof science,
and general descriptions of it and observations about the
resultantpublic attitude toward it ought themselves to be part of a
general science cur-riculum.
But the basic principles of the scientific method, modified very
little sinceFrancis Bacon, are not at all abstruse. At the level of
a specific scientific proj-ect, Holton is quite right in noting
that "the connection between phenomenaand theory, the theory
itself, and the way it is constructed, confirmed, and elabo-rated
are, and have to be, fully controlled by the scientific community."
Buthis concluding phrase can be misleading: "and understanding them
comes onlywith long immersion." (7) The educated public need not be
immersed in aspecific project In order to understand the basic
structure of science itself Thefundamental principles of the
scientific method are simple, straightforward,and easily taught.
Science education must start, and continue for some time,at the
very basics: the vocabulary of science ("evolution is just a
theory" isdemonstrative of ignorance of the meaning of "theory")
and the principles oflogic and reason. As a university instructor
for 17 years, I agree with Jon Millerthat the place to start is
elementary school. (8)
Isn't it paradoxical that our age is witness at once to the most
profound scien-tific discoveries of all time attd such a burgeoning
of interest in the occult? Con-sidered at one level, it would seem
so. But when we look a bit deeper, at thegeneral structure and
content of knowledge, we can see that it is not. Thereis a grave
crisis in science education. The basic principles of the
scientificmethod are not being taught in a manner that can enable
otherwise well-educated people to apply them to problems in their
daily ocperiences. Thepublic are the avid consumers of the
products, but have little awareness of theprocesses, of
science.
-
344 Et cetera WINTER 1988
NOTES AND REFERENCES1. Jon D. Miller, "Scientific Literacy: A
conceptual and empirical review" Daedalus, Spring,
1983, pp. 29-48.2. Jon D. Miller, "The Scientific miteme;'
American Demographics, June, 1987, 9:26-31.3. Barry Singer and
Victor Benassi, "Occult Beliefs," American Scientist,
January-February,
1981, 69:49-55.4. Gerald Holton, "The Advancement of Science,
and its Burdens," Daedalus, Summer, 1986,
pp. 75-104.5. William J. Broad, "The Men Who Made the Sun Rise,"
New York Times Book Review,
February 8, 1987, pp. 1,39.6. Singer and Benassi, op. cit.7.
Holton, op. cit., p. 93.8. Miller (1983), op cit., p. 46.
i\Specialistsimprisoned by their vocabularies
