1/12/2015

ABetterRationaleforScienceLiteracyTheChronicleReviewTheChronicleofHigherEducation

The Chronicle Review

October 30, 2011

A Better Rationale for Science Literacy

By Bruce Wightman
Current programs sponsored by science foundations such as the
American Association for the Advancement of Science emphasize
the importance of "science literacy" in both K-12 and higher
education. College curricula have pursued these goals through
science-literacy requirements or specialized science courses for
nonscience majors. Much has been written about what science
literacy is, with varying emphasis between the process of science
and the knowledge generated by that process.
That's all well and good, but relatively little attention has been
spent on why we think science literacy is so important. Statements
on the subject often begin with perfunctory justification; the value
of science literacy is treated as self-obvious. And "literacy" sounds
a bit defensive, laboring to justify the importance of science by
defining it in terms of an essential fluency. We don't talk about
"philosophical literacy." It seems as if we are straining to justify
ourselves in response to religious fundamentalists and
postmodernists who seek to constrain or diminish science
education.
If science education is important for all Americans, then we need
persuasive justifications for emphasizing science for all students in
college curricula. I think the most common rationales are not
terribly successful. One is that Americans' scores on scienceliteracy surveys are poor in comparison with other developed
nations. That is certainly cause for alarm, but it is not unique to
science. Surveys of basic knowledge about history, for example,
show similar results. I'm sure that Americans, over all, don't have a
good working knowledge of music, either. In general, we are more
ignorant than we should be, but that doesn't suggest why we
should be fluent in the language and theory of science in
particular.
http://chronicle.com/article/ABetterRationaleforScience/129541/

1/10

1/12/2015

ABetterRationaleforScienceLiteracyTheChronicleReviewTheChronicleofHigherEducation

Another common justification for promoting science literacy holds

that basic scientific knowledge is an imperative to be able to
function in an increasingly technological society. Citizens need
scientific knowledge to make better decisions in their lives. But
that justification is unsatisfying, because it conflates science and
technology and leads to the conclusion that knowledge of science
is simply a practical matter. Surveys have shown that Americans
have a poor understanding of why there are seasons. Should we
teach every American about orbital mechanics? That knowledge
wouldn't change the nature of the seasons or when people decide
to put on a heavier coat. Likewise, the relationship between matter
and energy isn't immediately useful unless you are building a
nuclear reactor. The practical-knowledge argument is a trap.
Many have argued that investment in science education makes
economic sense. That is a major theme in the work of Thomas
Friedman, of The New York Times. The central argument is
persuasive: Demand for technically skilled workers is increasing,
and American education is not supporting that demand. But,
again, this tends to conflate science and technology, and
emphasizes the practical over the theoretical. It also marries
science to the economic machine in a way that may not be entirely
desirable. When certain areas of inquiry no longer lead to obvious
profit, they could, under this line of reasoning, be abandoned. And
some forms of technological economic growth may actually be in
tension with some of the major themes in environmental science.
Furthermore, vocational justifications are problematic in liberalarts curricula, in which broad intellectual skills and knowledge are
favored over narrow training for specific careers.
Next, there is the citizen-scientist justification. In a democracy, all
citizens are involvedat least indirectlyin making policy. If
policies are to be informed by scientific knowledge, then voting
citizens must have a working understanding of scientific
principles: An educated populace makes for better government.
This argument seems to be a bit more successful in that it provides
a rationale for why understanding major theories and the process
of science is broadly informative. Politically motivated arguments
against evolution and climate change would be less successful if
http://chronicle.com/article/ABetterRationaleforScience/129541/

2/10

1/12/2015

ABetterRationaleforScienceLiteracyTheChronicleReviewTheChronicleofHigherEducation

the voting public had a good grasp of the tremendous explanatory

power of the natural sciences.
While this provides a more convincing rationale for why all
Americans should be scientifically literate, it falls short of
explaining why science in particular should be highlighted.
Solutions to political problems will not come solely from scientific
theories; a good grasp of Keynesian economics is critical for
current political conversations, too.
I think there may be a better reason that science literacy should be
a major component of higher-education curricula. There is
something transcendent about studying science. The humanities
and social sciences, for the most part, concern themselves with the
creations of human beings, our behavior, or the structure of our
societies. In contrast, the sciences force us to confront the
smallness and irrelevance of human beings; they serve as an
antidote to self-obsession. Physics teaches us that time and matter
are not absolutes; biology, that astonishing complexity can arise
from a long, natural, stepwise process. The scope and existential
implications of these ideas are immense.
Just as theology once provided the organizing themes for all
knowledge, science frames much of the 21st-century
consciousness. The "big ideas" of science provide the foundation
for understanding our universe. Practical understandings, such as
those needed for better health and good citizenship, arise from
these key ideas.
I do not mean to suggest that science should be studied at the
expense of other disciplines, nor that science education should
necessarily lead students to atheism. Indeed, science is best
understood when it is placed in the context of human creations
and historystudying science is, after all, a human activity.
An integrated conversation among disciplines is an important
aspect of the kind of flexible, higher-order thinking to which we
aspire. Yes, all college studentsall students generallyshould
become scientifically literate. And if they become better, more
employable citizens in a more competitively viable America, all the
http://chronicle.com/article/ABetterRationaleforScience/129541/

3/10

1/12/2015

ABetterRationaleforScienceLiteracyTheChronicleReviewTheChronicleofHigherEducation

better. But first and foremost, they should become scientifically

literate because, to borrow Darwin's phrase, "there is grandeur in
this view of life."
Bruce Wightman is a professor of biology at Muhlenberg College
and was program director of its Center for Ethics program "Science
and Sensibility: Studying Nature as a Human Endeavor."

29Comments

TheChronicleofHigherEducation

Login

Share Favorite

SortbyOldest

Jointhediscussion
betterschool 3yearsago

EnjoyablereadBruce.Thanksfortakingthetime.
3

Reply Share

schultzjc 3yearsago

Thisisgrand,highflyin'rhetoric.Buttheissueof"whyscience?"needstobe
dividedintotwoparts.Oneiswhatonesaystoinspirethe(talented)student(and
usestomotivateonesself).Dr.Wightman'sapproachisfine,there,ifhecan
makestudentsstopworryingaboutemploymentforamoment.Iusethat
approachwithmytalenteddaughterassheconsiderscollegeapplications.
Thesecondissue,andtheonethatcurrentlydominatesthediscussion,is
justifyingsciencetokeepitaliveandwell.Fundingforscienceresearchand
educationisnotparticularlywell,andthereissomechangeormortality,
dependingonpoliticaloutcomes.Thoseoutcomesdependonwhattheelectorate
andpoliticiansthinkandknow.IassureProf.Wightmanthatneithergrouphasthe
slightestinterestinthetranscendenceofscience.Andpolicyisnotbasedon
scienceitisbasedonotherhumanconcerns(althoscienceisoftenusedto
justifyastance,posthoc).WhatProf.Wightmanseesasmisplacedvaluesis
actuallyadaptiveframingthatrecognizeswho'sintheaudienceandwhatthey
careabout.
IassureDr.Wightmanthatthereremainsalargepopulationofscientistswhodo
whattheydoforthelargerreasonsheespouses.Andfundamental,curiosity
seemore

Reply Share

cwm4c>schultzjc 3yearsago

I'vepostedthiselsewhereontheCHEblogsrecently.Weshouldbevery
carefulnottodiscountthepublic,especiallyifnotcollegeeducated,
asscientificallyilliterate.Therewasagreatstudyreleasedrecentlythat
showsyoureducationlevelisactuallyinversetoscientific
positions/knowledgeheld.Sothoseofusthatdowell,actuallyreallywell
andgetgraduatedegrees,arelessdiscerning.Culturalbeliefsactually
drivewhatthepublic(andtheacdeme)believeswithscience,andmore
educationonthefactsisactuallydetrimental:
http://www.culturalcognition.n...
Wecontinuetoargueaboutthepublicbeingscientificallyilliterateasthe
problem,toourowndemise.
3

Reply Share

jeff_winger 3yearsago

http://chronicle.com/article/ABetterRationaleforScience/129541/

4/10

1/12/2015

ABetterRationaleforScienceLiteracyTheChronicleReviewTheChronicleofHigherEducation
jeff_winger 3yearsago

Iwanttosuggest,addingtoyourfinalpoint,thatitisaterriblydangerousfollyto
promoteoneformofeducationoveranother.
4

Reply Share

Gopher40>jeff_winger 3yearsago

Ponttaken,butirrationaldeemphasisisequallydangerous.I'mnotwilling
tosacrificehumanities,arts,andmusiceither.Igettheimpressionneither
istheauthor.
2

Reply Share

JeffBrown>jeff_winger 3yearsago

Notsurewhatyoumean.

Reply Share

MarjoryMunson 3yearsago

Thisremindsmeofacoupleofmygradeschoolteachers.Althoughtheyhadonly
anormalschooleducation(forthosetooyoungtoremember,thatiswhatthe
earlyteachertrainingschoolswerecalled),andhadtoteachallsubjects,
includingmusicandart,toeightgrades,superviseplaygroundactivities,and
scheduleandsupervisestudentjanitorialactivitiessuchascleaningtheblack
boards,sweepingthefloor,keepingthefurnacefired,andshovelingapathtothe
outdoortoiletinthewintertheylovedlearningandwereabletocommunicatethat
lovetotheirstudents.Scienceisgoodforpromotingthatlovebecauseonceyou
get"into"it,youwanttolearnmoremoresciencemorehumanitiesjustplain
more.
4

Reply Share

Gopher40>MarjoryMunson 3yearsago

Aslateas40yearsago,mysisterinlaw,afterhaving10kids,usedher
NormaltrainingtoteachaoneroomschoolintheUpperMidwest.Her
childrencautionedherthatinadditiontoteachingallofthesubjects,she'd
havetoplaysoftballwiththekidsatrecess.Heranswerwas,soyou
don'tthinkIcan't?Shedidquitewellinallactivites.

Reply Share

22067030 3yearsago

Thisisessentiallytheargumentinfavorofteachingtheliberalartstheyareabout
theworldwelivein.Andunfortunately,thisparticularargumentisgettinglittle
traction.Infact,inthisnation,thevocationalargumentstendtobethemost
politicallysuccessful.Andwhenoneadvocatesa"betterrationale"forsomething,
theissueis"betterforwhat"?Notforlobbyingmystatelegislature...
GLMcColm
4

Reply Share

Gopher40>22067030 3yearsago

Andtheliberalartsalsoincludethesciences.
6

Reply Share

22067030>Gopher40 3yearsago

Trytellingmylegislaturethat...
GLMcColm

Reply Share

trishjw 3yearsago

ManyAmericanshavetwomindsintheirknowledgeoruseofscience.Large
numberwillbepositiveaboutdesiretohavecleanwatertodrinkorgrowfoodin,
cleanairtobreatheandfewerchemicalsinthegroundforfarmersandfoodbut
thentheyturnaroundanddemandnoraisesintaxationtopayfortheequipment
neededtokeeptheairandwatercleanorhavelessdifficultylivinghealthilyorin
thecostofmedicationsorhealthcareforthosesamepurposes.Toomanyseem
nottoputthetwoitemstogether.Wecan'tavoidpayingmoneyforgoodhealthif
http://chronicle.com/article/ABetterRationaleforScience/129541/

5/10

1/12/2015

ABetterRationaleforScienceLiteracyTheChronicleReviewTheChronicleofHigherEducation

nottoputthetwoitemstogether.Wecan'tavoidpayingmoneyforgoodhealthif
wedon'tputmoneyintokeepingourair,waterandgroundcleanfromCO2or
otherkindsofsoot.
Also,intheeducationofAmericans,schoolsandteachersoftenaren'tallowedto
showstudentsfromfifthgradeonupthattheirknowledgeofsciencewillmost
likelyhelpthemacquirenewjobskillswhetherit'sfortechnicaljobsinthe
laboratoriesforcompanyproductsormedicationstobemadeorotherusesof
chemicalsorbeinga"fixit"personfortheoldplumbingthatmustbereplacedor
repaired,thenewelectricalwiringthatisneededinoldbuildingsortostraighten
outsomeone'sfrozencomputer,etc.Muchofthishasbeenlostbythelackof
"shop"classesthatwerelimitedthenforcarpentryorcarrepairinsteadof
changingtheusesofthosemechanicalmindedstudentstootherfields,the
schoolsjustdroppedthecourses.Thatispartofthemethodsthestateand
federalgovernmentcouldhelptopreparenewandolderpeopletonewjobswith
technicalcoursesforthoseover18andandupgradingandchangingofhigh
schoolcoursesforjobpreparationintechnicalfieldsat15forreadinessat18.
Toolittleofthisisdonebyanyone.Butallthistakesknowledgeofscienceand
taxmoneyforschools/trainingcourses.
5

Reply Share

JanakiRamRay 3yearsago

TheNYTrecentlydidaseriesoncollegegraduatesforcedtomovebackwith
parentsforlackofjobsnoneofthefeaturedwasasciencegraduate!TheTimes
alsodidaseriesonIvyLeaguegradsservingLattesatStarbucksorbartending
noneofthefeaturedwasasciencegraduate!AndtheTimesandseveral
othersnewspapersdidseriesfeaturingmembersoftheOccupyWall
Street...onceagainnonewasasciencegraduate!
Doweneedanymoreexamplesofthevalueofscienceeducation?
6

Reply Share

3rdtyrant>JanakiRamRay 3yearsago

OK,now,I'mnottryingtopickafight,butwecertainlydon'thavea
causality,here.Weprobablydon'tevenhaveacorrelation.Numerically,
itislikelythatsciencegraduatesarealowernumberthanhumanitiesor
business,soitstandstoreasonthatmoreofthemwouldbeoutthere
anyway.Second,thereisprobablysomethingtobesaid,stereotyping
thoughitmightbe,abouttheworldviewofascientist/empiricist,as
opposedtotheworldviewofhumanists(badterm,Iknow,butworkwith
me)orfailedbusinessgrads.Ijustdon'tthinkthelownumberoreven
absenceofsciencegradsprovesthepointyoumightwishittoprove.

Reply Share

Gopher40 3yearsago

Someofthecommentersmissthepointofthearticleandofthe"real"situation.
Thereisnoonereasonforatleastmaintainingtheemphasisonscience
education(althoughattacksfromconservativesandthereligiousrightareoften
primecontributorsforemphacizingscience).Obviouslyit'sessentialtotrainand
educatethepractitioners(andeducators)ofscienceofthefuture.However,it's
alsoessentialforthecontinuedwellbeingofsocietyaswellasthegeneralpublic
theelectorate.Unfortunately,scientificignorance,realorprofessed,aboundsnot
onlyinagoodshareofthepublic(andjournalists)butourelectedofficialsaswell.
Someofitisbasedonreligion,someonpolitics,someonaninnatenon
appreciationoforantiphahytowardscience.Scienceeducation,atleastatthe
firstlevels,shouldbetailoredtowardtreatingthesubjectsassimilablebythe
"typical"student,notjustthefutureprodigy.Yes,sceintiststhemselvesneedto
communicatebetterwiththepublicandthereareexcellentbooksandcourseson
howtodothis.
OneeducationalmethodIsuggesttoscienceteachersistolookforitemson
scienceinthepopularpressorTVandhavetheclasscritiquethem,especiallyif
errorshavebeenmadebythejournalistsorauthors.Examplesaboundfor
seemore

http://chronicle.com/article/ABetterRationaleforScience/129541/

6/10

1/12/2015

ABetterRationaleforScienceLiteracyTheChronicleReviewTheChronicleofHigherEducation
seemore

Reply Share

betterschool 3yearsago

Irecommendagainstgivingtheantiscientificfringetoomuchweight.Themedia
makemoneyexploitingthembutfewbelievetheirdrivelandfewerstillactonit.
Thegreaterriskislessvisible.Everyday,themajorityoftheprofessoriateteach
andevaluatestudentsusingprescientific19thcenturymodelsthatignore50
importantyearsoflearningandevaluationsciences.Noneofthesepeoplewould
visitaprescientificphysiciannorstepinanaircraftdesignedorbuildbyanyone
whoignorestherelevantscientificfindingsbuttheydefendtoexhaustiontheir
righttoteachviamethodspracticedbytheirprofessor'sprofessors.Let'slook
closertohomeinappreciatingthegrandeurofsciencesasapathtoknowledge
andasausefulcorpusofknowledgesoproduced.
3

Reply Share

JeffBrown 3yearsago

Oh,academia,academia,academia,whereforartthouacademia?Asusual,with
headfirmlyplanted....well,youknowwhere.Ishouldknow,I'vebeenteaching
atcollegesanduniversitiesasanadjunctforover10years.Academicsloveto
theorizeandtalk,talk,talk,talk.I'vegonetopresemesterpepralliesheldby
academicsandonceheardaPhDinsciencesayin40minuteswhatshecould
havesaidin10.Genius!Brilliant!Iwasamazedthatshecouldtakesomethingso
simpleandmakeitappearsocomplex.ButifyouhavePhDafteryourname,you
damnwellbettergetyourmoney'sworthwhetherpeoplewantyoutoornot.But
let'sgettotheissuehere,"scienceliteracy"AndIjustlovethe
wayacademicstalk.NOT!Butlet'ssticktothepoint.First,scienceisimportant
anditsplacesecuredbecauseofthefactthathalftheUSGDPcomesfrom
scientificinvention.Plusitgivesusneatstuffthatincreasesconvenienceand
opportunitytogrowfatterandlazier(butthat'sanotherissue).Butthat'spractical
stuff,andheavenhelpusifwemerelytalkofthepractical
nottheoretical.Whoops!Let'sgetdeepnow.Getyourbootson?lolOK,
academia,herewego.Contrarytopopularnotiontheaveragecitizenain'tgonna
getsquatfromstudyingsciencefor"betterhealthandgoodcitizenship."Say
what?Yes,greatesthealthonlyrequiresbasicknowledgeandanydeepscience
seemore

Reply Share

3rdtyrant>JeffBrown 3yearsago

Well,well,asanygoodscientistknows,youroneanecdotalbitof
evidenceissurelyenoughtoprovewithoutequivocationthatyourdisdain
foracademiaisneithertheresultofpositionenvynorcynicismoriginating
fromhubris.Andyou'reright,thereisnoneedforanydiscussionof
theory.TheFounders,forexample,oughtjusttohavefigureditoutina
dayandstoppedbeingsuchtalk,talk,talkidiotswhoonlylookedat
theory.Thethingthatyoumissisthatthetalkthatyoudislikesogives
risetoideasandtheverypracticalityyoumention.Certainlyinventioncan
occuroutsideofacademia,buthowcanyourationallydismissthe
inventionthatarisesfromtheseverydiscussionsthatyouobviouslywould
dosomuchbetter?Yourbusinessrhetoricshowsyourtruecolors,and
asabottomlinerwhowouldcorporatizeeducation,youevincetheneed
forgenuineeducationasanantidotetoyourflawedapproach.
Andbytheway,yourproseissubstandard.
4

Reply Share

dank48>JeffBrown 3yearsago

"Oh,academia,academia,academia,whereforartthouacademia?"
Well,forstarters,Jeff,itshouldbe"O"not"Oh,"and"wherefore"not
"wherefor"and"Academia"shouldbeinitialcappedifyou'regoingto
apostrophizeit.Idon'tthinkyoureallymeanttoaskwhyacademiais
academia,forthatmatter.
http://chronicle.com/article/ABetterRationaleforScience/129541/

7/10

1/12/2015

ABetterRationaleforScienceLiteracyTheChronicleReviewTheChronicleofHigherEducation
academia,forthatmatter.

Idon'thaveaPh.D.eitheranddon'tneedoneinmylineofwork,butIdo
knowsomethingaboutparagraphingandconcision,andI'dliketo
recommendbothtosomeonewhogoesonabout"talk."AndIsecond
3rdtyrant'scomments.

Reply Share

AbigailLarrison 3yearsago

Inneuroeducationthereisacallforteacherprofessionaldeveloptoincludenot
onlycoursesinneurosciencebutingeneralscientificinquiryandmethods.This
wouldmaketeachersmorecapabletoreadtheinformationrelevanttotheirown
practice,andtomakeinformedchoicesastomaterialsthatwouldbe
developmentallyalignedwiththeageandneedsoftheirclass.
Thisisthetypeofscienceliteracythatwetrulyneed.Contentcanchange,and
does(rememberpluto?)butthescientificmethodiseternal.
1

Reply Share

JeffBrown 3yearsago

Andonelastpoint.KeepinmindthisisaKcollegediscussionoftheaverage
citizenry,notthatwhichisspecifictoscienceeggheaderyonly.o)
1

Reply Share

pdahazard 3yearsago

WithanAmericanStudiesPh.D.(1957),Iincreasinglyresentthe
unacknowledgedantiscientismofmyhumanitiesprofessors,exceptMortimer
KadishwhowipedoutmymedievalCatholicismphilosophymajorinone
semester.TheGoodBookssyndromeisessentiallyacovertTheologism.
Scientificmethodisessentialtoahumanetechnolgicalsociety(whichoursisfar
frombeing)giventhegreenhousegasliesourCashocraticoiltycoonsfund,and
thecrassfalloutofsemibarborousboobslikeRushLamebow,shootingoffhis
mouthas"ExcelleceinBroadcasting".Ugh.TheOccupyWallStreetnovices
mustunderstandthatourcommercialgreedhasfounderedadysfunctional
societyinwhichinstantly"satsfying"goodiesoutflanksoundnutritionand
pervasivelyinfantilemediamakeaplaypenofModernAmerica.It'sgoingtobea
long,painfulhawlbacktomasssanity.Butscientificliteracymustprevailinall
aspectsofthismangledculture.Alas,at84,I'llneverseesucharenewal,but
prayforit,asonlyanexCatholicatheistcan.PatrickD.Hazard,Weimar,
Germany
2

Reply Share

3rdtyrant>pdahazard 3yearsago

Wow,badsubordination,propaganda,andswisscheesylogicallinone
post.Doesn'treflectwellonAmericanStudies,Atheism,orex
Catholicism.
2

Reply Share

3rdtyrant 3yearsago

Here!Here!IknowIcannotspeaktothisempirically,butoneofthebest
indicatorsofstudentsuccessinmyEnglishclassesisthatastudentbeatleast
semiliterateinscience.Itbogglesthemindthatanyfieldwouldnotencourageits
studentstobescienceliterate.
1

Reply Share

dank48>3rdtyrant 3yearsago

"Hear!Hear!"btw.(JusttoletJeffknowthat,whileImaybeanitpicker,I
trytobeevenhandedaboutit.)

Reply Share

dank48 3yearsago

I'dliketoseebetterscienceliteracy,butthen,I'dliketoseebetter"literacy"
acrossthespectrumofknowledge.It'sappallingthatpeoplecanmakeitthrough
socalledhighereducationalinstitutionsandcomeoutincrediblyignorantabout
http://chronicle.com/article/ABetterRationaleforScience/129541/

8/10

1/12/2015

ABetterRationaleforScienceLiteracyTheChronicleReviewTheChronicleofHigherEducation
socalledhighereducationalinstitutionsandcomeoutincrediblyignorantabout
science,math,technology,andsoon.It'salsoappallingthattheverypeoplewho
"reject"science(likerejecting,say,gravity)onthegroundsthatitconflictswith
theirreligiousbeliefsturnouttobejustasignorantaboutreligionanddamnnear
everythingelseastheyareaboutscience.

Reply Share

betterschool 3yearsago

Onewaytoorganizetheresponsestothisarticleistoaskthequestion,"What
consequencesaccruetocitizenignoranceofscientificreasoning(i.e.,howto
appraisethetypeandmeritofclaims)andscientificfindings(i.e.,basingactions
onintelligencederivedviascientificreasoning).Thisisnotaneasyquestionto
pose,muchlessanswer(Ieditedtheprevioussentenceahalfdozentimes,only
toconcludethatIwasnotuptothetaskofdoingitwellintheshorttimeIhad
availabletodayperhapsnotatall).Politically,wepermitindividualswhohave
noknowledgeofnuclearsciencetovoteonwhetheracommunitywillhavea
nuclearpowergeneratingfacility.Weevenpermitvotingbyapersonwholacks
theabilitytoqualifyhisvotebyproxybypayingattentiontothejudgments
ofqualifiednuclearenergyexperts.Inthatsense,knowledgeofscience
methodologyorcorpusofknowledgeisimmaterialtocitizenry.Ontheother
hand,itdoesnotfollowthattherearenoconsequencesassociatedtoactingon
scientificignorance.Severalofthosepostingherehaveadvancedanagendato
theeffectthatignoranceofallacademicdisciplines(orformsoflifeifyouarea
Wittgensteinian)islamentable.Whilenoonestateditthisway,Igetthe
impressionthatsomebelievethatsuchignoranceismoreorlessequivalentin
consequence.Idisagree.Ignoranceoftheworldofliteraturemayrenderyoua
boorincertaincircleswhileignoranceoftheeffectsofnuclearradiationandhow
toavoiditcankillyou.Conversely,whilealinefromEliotcanbeinstrumentalin
thrillingyoursoul.Alineofcodecanbeinstrumentalinmakingyourcellphone
work,theseatremainconnectedtoyourthirdrowaisleat40,000feet,orcure
yourdisease.Thereisgreatasymmetryintheupanddownsidecasesof
ignoranceinvariousformsoflife.Itisrational,therefore,toappraisethemeritof
thisasymmetryinassigningsocialpriorities.
2

Reply Share

5768 3yearsago

Theauthorappearstoadvocatemoreforscienceitselfthanpresentany
convincingargumentsthatwoulddefinewhatscienceliteracyis,howtoachieve
it,orwhytodosootherthantheobviousideologicaldebatesandtokeep
sciencefundingrollinginwhicharetacitlyimplicatedinsuchdiscussions.
"Literacy"isaloadedtopicnotwithoutsignificantassociationstomoreorless
minimal,fundamentalreadingandwritingskillssuchthatitmightseemnoone
couldpossiblyobject.Rathersurprising,however,scientificliteracyadvocates
seemdisconnectedfromquestionssurrounding"generalcurriculum"requirements
whichsimilarlyrequireacommoncoreofsubjectsbetakenbyeverygraduate,
andwhicharehighlydebatableastotheirvaluewhentheycomeattheexpense
ofdeeperprerequisitetrackingleadingtohigherorderknowledgeandthoughtin
subsequentupperlevelcourses,forexample.
Arguably,impartingacannedideaofthestepsofthesocalledscientificmethod
atypicaltopicinsucha'literacy'courseiseffectivelyanembodimentofcommon
sense.Unfortunatelyitbearslittleresemblancetosciencewhenpracticed:Not
onlyarethereasmanymethodsastherearedifferentsciences(forasingle
SCIENCEdoesnotexistasscholarsof20thcenturyphilosophyofsciencewill
seemore

Reply Share

sunspot 3yearsago

"Justastheologyonceprovidedtheorganizingthemesforallknowledge,science
framesmuchofthe21stcenturyconsciousness."
Thisstatementassumesthatscienceliteracyalreadyexistsandalreadyframes
"muchof"ourconsciousness.Ifthisweretrue,therewouldbenoneedtoraise
http://chronicle.com/article/ABetterRationaleforScience/129541/

9/10

1/12/2015

ABetterRationaleforScienceLiteracyTheChronicleReviewTheChronicleofHigherEducation
"muchof"ourconsciousness.Ifthisweretrue,therewouldbenoneedtoraise
scienceliteracy.Also,Dr.Wightman'sgrossassumptionthattheologyispasse,
asanorganizingthemeforourknowledge,assumesaverynarrowdefinitionof
knowledge.

Otherovertlybiasedstatementsmarthisotherwiseevenhandedappealforpublic
awareness.Forexample,thephrase"...thesciencesforceustoconfrontthe
smallnessandirrelevanceofhumanbeings..."isabelief,notascientific
fact.Youraudiencemaybelievethatscienceopensoureyestothe
preciousnessoflife,andthegreatnessofourroleinspreadinglifeandpurpose
throughouttheuniverse.
Thesetwostatementsappeartobepropagandafromthe"NewAtheist"
movement,whichonlyspeaksforabout7percentofscientists.(SeeDr.
Ecklund'sstudyin"Sciencevs.Religion:WhatScientistsReallyThink.")When
appealingtoapublicwhichislargelymotivatedbyreligiousbeliefs,itisnot
advisabletoinjectstatementsofpersonalbelief,andthenlabelyourpersonal
beliefsas"science".Thisonlyunderminesyourappeal,anditdamagesthe
publicviewofsciencewhenyoumisrepresentscienceasanatheistmovement.

Subscribe

Reply Share

AddDisqustoyoursite

Privacy

http://chronicle.com/article/ABetterRationaleforScience/129541/

10/10