Science (Il)literacy
Jerry Large makes a good point in the Seattle Times. Better science education is of course crucial (and among many things hamstrung by NCLB), but we also need to work for basic science literacy in the media, entertainment and engaging public speakers. Lifelong science learning must become accessible and enjoyable...
From If everyone got a better..."
>>What's important is to at least know what science is and how it works, so that you can find out what you need to know when you need to know it; so that you can make informed judgments about issues involving science.
>>I'm talking about a basic understanding that would change the nature of conversations we have about race, gender, food processing and monkey relatives.
>>You read that a federal judge ruled Tuesday that it was unconstitutional for a Pennsylvania school district to present intelligent design as an alternative to evolution.
>>The judge, John Jones III, was appointed by President Bush and is himself both conservative and religious. He threw out intelligent design because it isn't science. It's religion and he could see the difference.
>>If you don't even know what science is, you might not be able to see that distinction. Jones respects both realms, but doesn't make the mistake of seeing them as interchangeable.
>>I can't help thinking that if we'd do a better job of science education we'd have fewer unnecessary arguments like this one. Science is racing ahead, and if we are going to keep up we need to stop monkeying around.
From If everyone got a better..."
>>What's important is to at least know what science is and how it works, so that you can find out what you need to know when you need to know it; so that you can make informed judgments about issues involving science.
>>I'm talking about a basic understanding that would change the nature of conversations we have about race, gender, food processing and monkey relatives.
>>You read that a federal judge ruled Tuesday that it was unconstitutional for a Pennsylvania school district to present intelligent design as an alternative to evolution.
>>The judge, John Jones III, was appointed by President Bush and is himself both conservative and religious. He threw out intelligent design because it isn't science. It's religion and he could see the difference.
>>If you don't even know what science is, you might not be able to see that distinction. Jones respects both realms, but doesn't make the mistake of seeing them as interchangeable.
>>I can't help thinking that if we'd do a better job of science education we'd have fewer unnecessary arguments like this one. Science is racing ahead, and if we are going to keep up we need to stop monkeying around.
posted by Science Vigilante at 12:33 PM
<< Home