• Home
  • About

Shores of the Dirac Sea

A blog about physics… mostly.

Feeds:
Posts
Comments
« The correlation length of notation
Comic Strings, Episode 5 »

Selling science to the masses.

August 27, 2009 by dberenstein

Scientists are these mythical creatures that live somewhere between the clouds and the stratosphere. Their working habits include using lab  gowns, pocket protectors and calculators. Many of them (some would say most) are unkempt and dress poorly, except the ones that don’t. The scientists speak their own language, which is filled with long words and an adherence to strict meanings for words. When trying to communicate to the rest of the people, they describe their work in overly complicated technical terms. This inspires fear, which is exacerbated by the natural fear of the unknown. The typical stereotype of scientists is that of a mad scientist. This is apparent in movies and television dramas. Mostly, it shows scientists as being unconcerned with the day to day stuff that makes most of humanity tick. Most importantly, the attitude that is portrayed is one of arrogance. Scientists are described as condescending  `know it all’   SOB’s who can’t bother to explain their work to people that don’t understand it.

At least in recent years it seems that some kinds of science are getting more respect (forensic science for example), and one can find random clippings on the web on how that has affected the real life work of the individuals who practice it. The reality is closer to an non-scientific community.

So now we enter the theme of the day. How can we overcome the above hurdle for communicating science to the public?

Well, If I may say so, we ‘exaggerate a little bit’ and try to draw a comparison with every day stuff that is not quite technically correct, but that at least provides some warm fuzzy feelings in the public towards scientists. We do this propaganda to counter the ‘scientists want to destroy the world’ anti-propaganda that makes many technical advancements seem both scary and bad. So we have a PR issue here.

So now, for the humor part of the post, I have a few suggestions on how to sell this thing called science to the masses, so that they see us as a more friendly beast than a dragon. For today, I will just focus on what is scientific work like? People might not be interested in the details of the research, but they are definitely interested in some vague notion that is accessible of ‘how we conduct our daily lives, in particular with regards to research’. These are some slogans that you might find useful, with an ‘explanation’ of the analogy in case you need to elaborate.

Scientific research is like being a gardener.

Lemme explain this. You meet with people, you plant ideas in their head, you cross-pollinate to generate new ideas. You wait until they grow, and eventually they might even bear fruit. Sometimes you need machines to make this happen, and a green house (controlled environment). Of course, you  have to watch out for weeds that take over a garden. Vigilance is the key. Once you get a good batch, you might just want to make sure that you can get it again if you need to. So you repeat until the crops are stable and then you go to the market with your produce.

Scientific research is like fishing.

You have to imagine that each scientist has their own set of fishing equipment, hooks and worms, and their favorite spot to fish. When scientists get together they exchange pictures of their recent catch, as well as the location of the spot where it was found. If the catch seems good, a lot of other scientists flock to the same site and start fishing the `good spot’ with their different fishing gear. They might exchange some of that with each other until they find the best hooks and worms for the spot. And of course, fishing sometimes requires a lot of patience, and a relaxing chair to enjoy the day with some reading material. Not surprisingly, most of the fish that are found are small fish, but people still have a good time. And if you have enough small fish, you might have a larger catch than just one big fish.

Scientific discovery is like grazing in a pasture.

Scientists are like cows (spherical cows indeed). They graze in packs. As soon as a good pasture is found, you have a stampede of scientists flocking to the site. All the easy tall grass gets eaten up quickly and the herd moves on. There are some stragglers that eat the leftovers behind. And the hard grass to chew is many times left behind for a new generation that has a better set of teeth to chew it with. Of course, these are scientific cows, so the new teeth might be these ultra strong dentures made of titanium and coated with diamond dust…. but I digress. I’m sure that by now you get the analogy.

Scientific research is like playing video games.

Well, every time a new  ‘level’ gets finished, ten new levels sprout up. In the meantime, you get your buddies and tell them how to finish the level so that they can help you conquer the next ones. Also, just like in video games, a lot of ideas on how to complete a level end up with a ‘dead character’ and RESTART: new life. Until somebody figures it out, or they find that the level was programed to be impossible (a little hacking might be required).

Finally,

Scientific research is like surfing.

You never know when the next big wave is going to hit and you might miss it because you’re looking in the wrong direction.

About these ads

Rate this:

Like this:

Like Loading...

Posted in Academia, humor, science and society, Science ethics | 10 Comments

10 Responses

  1. on August 27, 2009 at 9:03 pm Haelfix

    I can’t explain the things we do to even my family and close relatives. So i’ve given up trying to explain it to laymen, unless its to impress some wide eye member of the opposite sex (in which case embellishment is the name of the game).

    I just don’t have the gift that people like Brian Greene have in explaining things simply to people ignorant not just of Y2k science, but more or less of science as done even in the 1800s. Seriously, what hope is there to explain hundreds of lectures into a 5 minute discourse detailing not just what I do, but the state of the field, why such and such a problem is important, what its like to work in the field and what my average day consists off.

    Even worse, when you get someone who actually ‘disagrees’ or says ‘that doesn’t make any sense’ when explaining relativity or quantum mechanics. The bumbling explanation of why they’re wrong, of course tends to make the problem even more confusing to them. In short, an exercise in futility.

    I personally believe that the situation won’t ever change, despite hundreds of attempts over decades to try to figure out a way to educate the masses.


    • on August 27, 2009 at 9:05 pm dberenstein

      I wish I knew how to solve THAT problem. Instead, I write a blog, hoping someone will give me a tip on how to do it :)


  2. on August 27, 2009 at 9:53 pm Joseph Smidt

    Yeah, communicating things to the public is difficult. I think one problem is many people aren’t interested in science, no matter how well it is explained.

    I have seen some studies (sorry I don’t have links) that seem to suggest there are things just that require the same mentality needed to understand science yet most people learn these thing quickly, largely because they are interested in the subjects.

    Or we will take me. I understand things in physics that make people amazed but I don’t think I am that smart, only interested enough to work hard.

    Now, there is more to it then this, but I think we have to fight the battle of people not being interested in science.


  3. on August 27, 2009 at 9:58 pm onymous

    There are some stragglers that eat the leftovers behind. And the hard grass to chew is many times left behind for a new generation that has a better set of teeth to chew it with.

    No, you should stick with the cow analogy, which fits. That stuff is first digested into some sort of degraded bolus in the first pass. Then it is regurgitated and chewed as cud for some time before finally being re-digested.


    • on August 27, 2009 at 10:21 pm dberenstein

      We do like to ruminate on ideas. :evil:


  4. on August 28, 2009 at 7:19 pm Giotis

    If you permit me, I think it would be better not to use terms like “masses”. There are no “masses”. This a manufactured, derogatory term designed to impersonalise and dehumanise the society of people in order to manipulate it easily. The society of people by definition is a voluntary union of free individuals.


    • on August 28, 2009 at 8:41 pm dberenstein

      Hi Giotis:

      Please don’t take these posts so seriously. The language is many times tongue in cheek. I’m obviously making more fun of us ‘the scientists’ than them ‘the non-scientists’. Bending over backwards to be politically correct to prevent a relatively unlikely feeling of being somewhat slighted by some people just dilutes the quality of conversations and interactions. I’m not trying to sound insensitive, but the whole post is a caricature and it should be taken as such. I’m playing the part of the scientist ‘unconcerned for the day to day lives of those other individuals called homo sapiens’


      • on August 29, 2009 at 12:54 pm Giotis

        Understood. I didn’t realize that you were writing in such mood. In that case I realize that I was exaggerative.


  5. on August 30, 2009 at 12:16 am Just Learning

    Since this is now becoming a discussion about the “alleged” aloofness of scientists (and by extension engineers) I thought this would be appropriate

    I’m becoming less defined as days go by
    Fading away
    And well you might say
    I’m losing focus
    Kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself

    Sometimes I think I can see right through myself [x2]
    Sometimes I can see right through myself

    Less concerned about fitting into the world
    Your world that is
    Cause it doesn’t really matter anymore
    (no it doesn’t really matter anymore)
    No it doesn’t really matter anymore
    None of this really matters anymore

    Yes I am alone but then again I always was
    As far back as I can tell
    I think maybe it’s because
    Because you were never really real to begin with
    I just made you up to hurt myself

    [x2]
    I just made you up to hurt myself, yeah
    And I just made you up to hurt myself

    And it worked.
    Yes it did!

    [Chorus:]
    There is no you
    There is only me
    There is no you
    There is only me
    There is no f*cking you
    There is only me
    There is no f*cking you
    There is only me

    Only [x4]

    Well the tiniest little dot caught my eye and it turned out to be a scab
    And I had this funny feeling like I just knew it’s something bad
    I just couldn’t leave it alone, I kept picking at the scab
    It was a doorway trying to seal itself shut
    But I climbed through

    Now I am somewhere I am not supposed to be, and I can see things I know I really shouldn’t see
    And now I know why, now, now, now I know why
    Things aren’t as pretty
    On the inside


  6. on September 8, 2009 at 2:06 pm Cody

    I haven’t really read the post (or comments) in detail, but figured it worthwhile to mention Richard Feynman’s speech “What is Science?”

    http://www.fotuva.org/online/frameload.htm?/online/science.htm

    during which, in an attempt to define science, he tells this short story:

    What science is, I think, may be something like this: There was on this planet an evolution of life to a stage that there were evolved animals, which are intelligent. I don’t mean just human beings, but animals which play and which can learn something from experience–like cats. But at this stage each animal would have to learn from its own experience. They gradually develop, until some animal [primates?] could learn from experience more rapidly and could even learn from another’s experience by watching, or one could show the other, or he saw what the other one did. So there came a possibility that all might learn it, but the transmission was inefficient and they would die, and maybe the one who learned it died, too, before he could pass it on to others.

    The question is: is it possible to learn more rapidly what somebody learned from some accident than the rate at which the thing is being forgotten, either because of bad memory or because of the death of the learner or inventors?

    So there came a time, perhaps, when for some species [humans?] the rate at which learning was increased, reached such a pitch that suddenly a completely new thing happened: things could be learned by one individual animal, passed on to another, and another fast enough that it was not lost to the race. Thus became possible an accumulation of knowledge of the race.

    This has been called time-binding. I don’t know who first called it this. At any rate, we have here [in this hall] some samples of those animals, sitting here trying to bind one experience to another, each one trying to learn from the other.

    This phenomenon of having a memory for the race, of having an accumulated knowledge passable from one generation to another, was new in the world–but it had a disease in it: it was possible to pass on ideas which were not profitable for the race. The race has ideas, but they are not necessarily profitable.

    So there came a time in which the ideas, although accumulated very slowly, were all accumulations not only of practical and useful things, but great accumulations of all types of prejudices, and strange and odd beliefs.

    Then a way of avoiding the disease was discovered. This is to doubt that what is being passed from the past is in fact true, and to try to find out ab initio again from experience what the situation is, rather than trusting the experience of the past in the form in which it is passed down. And that is what science is: the result of the discovery that it is worthwhile rechecking by new direct experience, and not necessarily trusting the [human] race['s] experience from the past. I see it that way. That is my best definition.

    Between that, and the history of interesting discoveries (like our understanding of light, the solar system, evolution, the atom, etc.), and also bizarre facts, (trees are made primarily of air! we live on all sides of a big ball! every human, animal, and plant has a common ancestor! and so on), I find it relatively easy to get people interested and thinking differently about science. Though I’m not entirely sure how to initiate such conversations, often they spring up naturally when people want to know more, not sure how to force it upon people though…



Comments are closed.

  • Recent Posts

    • Woof Woof
    • Happy 3.1415926535… day
    • Unstable Universes
    • Bad science reporting versus good science reporting
    • If some of my students were writing problems
  • Archives

    • April 2013
    • March 2013
    • February 2013
    • January 2013
    • November 2012
    • September 2012
    • August 2012
    • July 2012
    • May 2012
    • March 2012
    • February 2012
    • January 2012
    • December 2011
    • November 2011
    • September 2011
    • July 2011
    • June 2011
    • May 2011
    • April 2011
    • March 2011
    • February 2011
    • January 2011
    • December 2010
    • November 2010
    • October 2010
    • September 2010
    • August 2010
    • July 2010
    • June 2010
    • May 2010
    • April 2010
    • March 2010
    • February 2010
    • January 2010
    • December 2009
    • November 2009
    • October 2009
    • September 2009
    • August 2009
    • July 2009
    • June 2009
    • May 2009
    • April 2009
    • March 2009
    • February 2009
    • January 2009
    • December 2008
    • November 2008
    • October 2008
    • September 2008
  • August 2009
    M T W T F S S
    « Jul   Sep »
     12
    3456789
    10111213141516
    17181920212223
    24252627282930
    31  
  • Recent Comments

    Plato on Woof Woof
    Pepe on Woof Woof
    dberenstein on Woof Woof
    Lubos Motl on Woof Woof
    Wyrd Smythe on Happy 3.1415926535……
  • Physics/Math/Science Blogs

    • Asymptotia (Clifford Johnson)
    • Backreaction
    • Coctail Party Physics
    • Cosmic Variance
    • Dmitry Podolsky
    • Jeffrey Epstein Science
    • John Baez
    • Michael Nielsen
    • Musings (Jacques Distler)
    • Not even wrong
    • Resonaances
    • Robert Helling
    • Shtetl Optimized
    • Sunclipse
    • Terry Tao
    • Tomasso Dorigo
    • Uncertain Principles
  • Science Resources

    • Physics (APS journal)
    • Scientific American
  • Some More Blogs

    • Evil Inc
    • Fafblog
    • phd Comics
    • Regator
    • Scenes from a multiverse
    • Site Meter
    • WordPress.com
    • WordPress.org
  • Pages

    • About
  • Meta

    • Register
    • Log in
    • Entries RSS
    • Comments RSS
    • WordPress.com

Blog at WordPress.com.

Theme: MistyLook by WPThemes.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 33 other followers

Powered by WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: