Why has science failed so miserably?

[meogi]

My apologies for misreading you, but other than forcing these truths on people just what do you expect science to do in order to better convey its truths about nature? As I point out, because science is quite open, those who care will find out what it's doing, and those who don't care aren't going to bother listening. So I don't see science being negligent, or however you want to put it, in getting its truths out.

You may or may not know, Sunstone is known to spark debate wherever possible. A devil's advocate in my opinion. But always for good reason.

 

[Sunstone]

How much better would you like?

I think the American public could be much better educated about science, meogi. It is my understanding that we do not rank anywhere near the top of nations for general knowledge of science. I see no real reason why we must believe Americans cannot understand science as well as the people of many other nations. Do you?

We've been at it for around 200 years.

At science? Galileo is often credited with having founded modern science roughly 400 years ago. Just out of curiosity, what are you dating your figure of 200 years from? Or, are you saying that wide spread public education in the sciences began about 200 years ago?

And exponentially improved over the last 50, 20, and even 5 years.

Do you mean science education has exponentially improved over the past few years or decades? If so, I would be very interested in your sources for that claim?

Would you like science to just suddenly go: Yep, that's it. Reality has been won!

I don't understand the relevance of your comment. Would you please explain it to me?

 

[Skwim]

You may or may not know, Sunstone is known to spark debate wherever possible. A devil's advocate in my opinion. But always for good reason.

Oh, I don't mind a good debate, in fact I often welcome them, but that doesn't mean misunderstandings won't crop up that need attending.

 

[Sunstone]

My apologies for misreading you, but other than forcing these truths on people just what do you expect science to do in order to better convey its truths about nature? As I point out, because science is quite open, those who care will find out what it's doing, and those who don't care aren't going to bother listening. So I don't see science being negligent, or however you want to put it, in getting its truths out.

I think science education in the US could be vastly improved on all levels of the school system. There may be other measures worth taking, too, but I think improved education would be a very good place to start. It seems to me you might be arguing that only those who care about science without any external prompting are worth making an effort to educate about science. Is that the case, or have I misunderstood you?

 

[Skwim]

I think science education in the US could be vastly improved on all levels of the school system. There may be other measures worth taking, too, but I think improved education would be a very good place to start. It seems to me you might be arguing that only those who care about science without any external prompting are worth making an effort to educate about science. Is that the case, or have I misunderstood you?

I agree that science education in the US could be improved, but that would be the responsibility of our educational systems, not that of science. Your concern was with the failure of science not the failure of our educators, "why has science failed to convey those truths about nature any better than it has?" and this is what I was speaking to: the arena of science communicating with the individual, not education communicating with its charges.

 

[Sunstone]

I agree that science education in the US could be improved, but that would be the responsibility of our educational systems, not that of science. Your concern was with the failure of science not the failure of our educators, "why has science failed to convey those truths about nature any better than it has?" and this is what I was speaking to: the arena of science communicating with the individual, not education communicating with its charges.

Fair enough. That seems to clarify our similarities and differences here rather admirably. Thank you for that!

I would only maintain that many science educators, especially on the university level, are to one degree or another practicing scientists -- so I think the distinction between "science" communicating with the public and "education" communicating with the public can be blurry at times.

 

[meogi]

I see no real reason why we must believe Americans cannot understand science as well as the people of many other nations. Do you?

Not at all. I believe any nation can understand science as well as any. They just may not have the technology to do so.

Or, are you saying that wide spread public education in the sciences began about 200 years ago? Just out of curiosity, what are you dating your figure of 200 years from?

I would say so, yes. I date my 200 years is from the advancement of such scientists as Einstein, Hawking, Gould, Sagan, and many others. They have had revolutionary ideas about the universe and where and why it is as it is. I don't think they really have much more credit before these times, as observation and experimentation was quite weak before then. But they have build upon their observation and experimentation.

Do you mean science education has exponentially improved over the past few years or decades? If so, I would be very interested in your sources for that claim?

My claim comes from the extreme technological advances over the past 200 years. Computers, quantum theory (questionable), and telescope-ography have quite the influence on our current understanding.

I don't understand the relevance of your comment. Would you please explain it to me?

It seems to me you think science could come up with the answers to reality instantaniously. Why do you think anything near perfect understanding should have been achieved over such a period of time? We're not yet at a technological singularity (which I believe will never actually be achieved). But we certainly have a greater understanding of things than we did 50, 20, or even 5 years ago.

I would only maintain that many science educators, especially on the university level, are to one degree or another practicing scientists -- so I think the distinction between "science" communicating with the public and "education" communicating with the public can be blurry at times.

Agreed.

 

[Sunstone]

First, meogi, thanks for the clarifications! They are very helpful.

It seems to me you think science could come up with the answers to reality instantaniously.

I actually don't believe science should come up with the answers to reality instantaneously. Or anything near to instantaneously. I am sorry if I have misled you into thinking that was my position.

 

[the13th1]

Why has science failed so miserably to convey that the laws of nature (physics) can not be suspended or altered no matter how much we wish and pray?

If faith is ever right about anything it is right by accident.

Well, I think Science or scientists don't actively try to make people understand the workings of the world, the way the religious preachers(RPs) do. This is because scientists are paid to explore the unknown while the RPs depend on people's ignorance for their business.


As far as faith is concerned, I don't understand it as something with religious connotations. Instead I understand faith as having trust in something, some process, some person, etc. A human mind can be taught to have faith in anything if it is trained that way. & sometimes it can trust in unrealistic things, which only turn out to be disappointing or maybe "right by accident" if the conditions permit.

 

[Skeptisch]

You might begin by taking a hard, close look at modern public relations firms and the various campaigns they have launched against science over the past few decades.

I did that and wondered, is it an accident that, in the USA, these modern anti science PR firms often seem to be connected to the religious right and/or the GOP?

 

[Skwim]

I did that and wondered, is it an accident that, in the USA, these modern anti science PR firms often seem to be connected to the religious right and/or the GOP?

Curious as to what firms you're talking about and what they said. Care to share?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Truth may be unalterable, but our interpretation of it can be flexible.

To which we fester on. ;O)

 

[Penumbra]

Why has science failed so miserably to convey that the laws of nature (physics) can not be suspended or altered no matter how much we wish and pray?

If faith is ever right about anything it is right by accident.

Science doesn't have it as its obligation to convey anything to anyone.

But educational systems in some places aren't very good. I was sad to find out how scientifically illiterate the average college student is, including the typical college student that is seeking a degree that allows them to teach kids in school.

 

[kutulu]

is it not true that very important scientific theories that many laws are based upon cannot be physically proven?
rhetorical question i already know the answer is yes!(i watch science channel)
how is beleiving in a theory you cant prove different then beleiving in any religion?
another rhetorical qeustion!!!!!
ITS NOT!

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm not sure what you are talking about, Kutulu, but I'm fairly certain that I disagree.

Let's go over that with a bit more detail, shall we?

Would you like to offer a specific example of your complaint?

 

[meogi]

is it not true that very important scientific theories that many laws are based upon cannot be physically proven?

So many negatives, so little punctuation; hard to decipher!
Laws are not based upon theories. Laws are based on observation. Theories compile a group of laws. Theories do not prove anything, only discern a degree of certainty.

how is beleiving in a theory you cant prove different then beleiving in any religion?

You misunderstand theory. One has objective evidence.

 

[Skeptisch]

As far as faith is concerned, I don't understand it as something with religious connotations.

You are quite right since many of us have unlimited faith in the laws of nature. The OP should have emphasized “religious” faith, or even better religious faith of the Abrahamic kind.

 

[charles brough]

Why has science failed so miserably to convey that the laws of nature (physics) can not be suspended or altered no matter how much we wish and pray?

If faith is ever right about anything it is right by accident.

What an amazing statement! The whole reason we depend so much on science and technology is that it is not rigid, not something static that is claimed to be eternal and coming from a single book. Science changes and its changes are improvements which make our understanding of ourselves and the universe always a little more accurate. The so-called Laws of Physics are rules that have changed and will continue to be improved upon. The theory accepted by the scientific consensus is the latest and hence morst accurate understanding of the subject. It is not and does not claim to be "eternal" as nothing is. Because perfection is impossible, we will always need to know more. We will always have or need to have science.

Throughout the milleniums, religions have come and religions have gone. None have been or ever will be etermal, but science will be needed as long as there is the human race.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

the fact that you exist is proof that miraculous and extremely unlikely things happen...

It is not in the least bit miraculous or unlikely. The probability of him existing is one, because he exists.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Why has science failed so miserably to convey that the laws of nature (physics) can not be suspended or altered no matter how much we wish and pray?

If faith is ever right about anything it is right by accident.

Science unfortunately doesn't have political power.