I have noticed in the general community a misconception about what science is. Even when people for example are talking positively about the theory of evolution, they generally talk about it as if it was a belief. In some issues, the public generally tend to interpret scientific theories as if they were belief-based theories.

There is also a common conception that science is cold, rationalistic and therefore anti-humanistic (since as you know reason is apparently the opposite to emotions). This means that in many discussions, the one who first bring up emotion-based arguments is prevailing.

I think we should dedicate this thread on strategies on how to transform the image of science and be able to correspond the scientific method as a theory and practice to the general public. Any ideas?

People fear the unknown. Since scientific theories are usually complex and cannot be easily understood (or at least, not everybody can have a complete understanding of every branch of it; sociologists would not understand technical sciences and vice versa, for example, though in reality one would specialize in one specific branch of science and understand it, while not understanding any other).

What can be done is that people can be familiarized with some scientific conclusions, by explaining them in an easily understandable (if not completely conclusive) ways. It is up to the experts to do so in their respective fields.

LP,
Jure

Enrique Lescure wrote:

Perhaps religious belief in science may be a necessity.

Take the Second Law of Thermodynamics, for example. It places a probabilistic limit on physical processes. However, people hate limits, and embrace outlier events. For example, in many action movies, again and again, the hero "beats the odds" of failure. In Star Wars V, a robot tells hero Hans Solo the odds are 4 million-to-one agains success (or some similar figure), but using pure moxie, Solo beats the odds and saves the day. Therefore according to "common wisdom", the Second Law of Thermodynamics cannot possibly be valid. Human psychology necessitates that the odds can always be beaten. This is a very inspiring and empowering attitude (but potentially devastating when designing real life systems).

Perhaps the only way to counter human psychology is to have an equally powerful belief in science, such as a religious belief. If the Second Law of Thermodynamics becomes a religious maxim, then it must be true.

One might argue that physical scientists are above this sort of psychology, but as I have argued before, scientists are often much more vulnerable to drawing religious conclusions about science than other intellectuals. Was it not Einstein who rejected quantum theory on the religious grounds that "God does not play dice." If the arguably greatest scientist of the 20th Century Einstein fell prey to such thinking, who among us can be certain to do better? Further, physical scientists often disdain emotion or even discussing emotion, and this have a great bind spot concerning the emotional sources of their scientific beliefs.

The latest front of physicist's war upon the Second Law of Thermodynamics is symmetry. According to symmetry, microscopic systems are the same going backwards and forwards in time, therefore they do not produce entropy, and are not subject to the Second Law. Since the universe is composed of such microscopic systems, therefore the entropy of the universe cannot increase, and hence the Second Law of Thermodynamics is essentially invalid or at least meaningless. This is a highly simplified version of the arguments, and many physicists do not fall into this trap, be enough mathematicians DO assert this absurd overreach of symmetry theory to make my work much more difficult.

However, if the Second Law becomes a religious belief, then all the absurd emotion-driven "scientific" arguments against the Second Law become moot. This is not the best way to do science, but it may be a necessary way to drive a movement of people.



Yes, four ideas.

1) Regarding thermodynamics, change the terminology. Many people feel that entropy equals death. This creates a tremendous psychological barrier against developing a thermodynamics driven science of society. To counter that negative psychology, positive terminology can be used. For example, life can be defined as the production of entropy. Under this definition, stars and fire would be included in the definition of life. Hence, nearly the entire Universe is alive. People who continue to insist on entropy = death are denounced as "the glass is half empty" doomsayers. Even if the Universe eventually does die of heat death, it won't likely occur for trillions of years from now, and anything that far away is frankly not our most important concern.

Change the terminology even more: describe entropy as the achievement of thermodynamic potential. Therefore the Principle of Fast Entropy changes from "entropy production is subject to the Principle of Least Action" to "systems tend to strive to achieve their potential as quickly as possible." It sounds much more positive and humanistic.

2) We need to improve our science education and outreach materials. "We" means the people reading this post. This was one of the key recommendations at the Fast Entropy-History Dynamics steering committee meeting last December. Creating a study course was a specific suggestion. (Their criticism was primarily directed to past materials I have created, rather than concerning EOS, but I think this is an important area of improvement for all of us).

3) Include activities that include green plants. Plants make science feel more alive and benign. This fits well into the EOS hydroponics efforts, although lay persons might respond more to the lettuce demos than algae ones.

4) Find a way to get more women involved. As Enrique has observes, men talk, women walk. Without women, our organisations tend to devolve into mere debating societies, IMHO.

I don't in fact think that most people are even knowing about Thermodynamics, and I don't think religious belief in anything (not even the semi-religious belief in Positivism) would really help scientific inquiry. If a theory could be falsified and put to test, it should be tested out - even the General Theory on Gravity, the theory of General Relativity and Thermodynamics. As long as the criticisms are based on scientific reason and peer reviewed, there should be no problem.

Enrique Lescure wrote:


Such a belief could even hinder scientific inquiry. The goal is to help the movement, not science. However, scientists' religious beliefs (e.g. in symmetry voiding the Second Law even on macroscopic scales) are greatly hindering our movements. Unfortunately, I fear that society may only have a limited window of time to make the desired changes to give our society substantially increased sustainability. Time is of the essence, but numerous physicists even deny the existence of time! (Yes, they teach it in the introductory courses, but in their hearts deny it). Hence a social science involving time and the Second Law is shun on such religious beliefs. I wonder is the only way to psychologically counter such religious beliefs is to counter them with other religious beliefs.




In the long run, this may be so. If society had more time to act, perhaps we could wait a few hundred years for this misinterpretation of symmetry to sort itself out.



The Second Law of Thermodynamics HAS been tested and peer-reviewed. AND sub-atomic particles such as protons will eventually decay according to the well-accepted understanding of physics. Also, time is certainly an important part of our life. Even a professor who denies the existence of time will fail a student who turns in late homework or shows up for an exam on the wrong day. Scientists are human. People, including scientists, are often much more motivated by religious beliefs than established scientific fact. Just because Jesus or Buddha isn't mentioned in the religions of science does not mean such beliefs are not religious.

Not all scientists are so religious on their scientific beliefs, but often the most vocal ones are. Hence, often the public will latch on to the statements of such figures, which fit in well with their own psychology.

Another issue is that purely fact-based people often become cynical. Cynics are often extremely disempowered people. A movement needs empowerment, not cynicism.

I don't know whether you are supporting or against scientists having a religious belief in their theories.

Jure Sah wrote:


Yes but I think the phenomena has more to it that that. Human nature gives us an intuitive understanding of the world. It works to a degree even if it doesn't match the reality well. That means that a lot of people can have trouble understanding the world around them in scientific terms; how can something that feels so right be so wrong?

In my observation, it seams that people have an easier time taking our basic human understanding of the world and re-labelling it with scientific terms then understanding science. For example, our intuitive understanding of world gives us the idea of vitalism. Science shows us that we have understood the world incorrectly yet the ideas persists and gets re-labelled in scientific terms. So vitalism becomes "spiritual energy". People then have an easier time understanding "spiritual energy" as it fits so well with their intuitive understanding of the world (they can "feel" the "spiritual energy") yet they fail to understand the scientific term "energy" and the associated theory of thermodynamics.

How to get over this? Well, education forms the main way but education to understand human nature rather than trying to explain the science; how we think and understand the world and why we get it wrong. Understand how science can get us pass that barrier.

"Know thy self".

ui

Enrique Lescure wrote:

I'm claiming, due to human psychology, that many scientists do have a religious belief in their theories, regardless of whether we support them having so.

Therefore, many scientists cannot be persuaded by facts that challenge their existing scientific beliefs. In fact, there is literature that shows that the more facts you present, the more likely your idea will be rejected. This is because the listener will accept your facts that they fell support their ideas, while rejecting your facts that do not. This is called confirmation bias. Therefore, to persuade such scientists, one may need to appeal to them in a religious manner; to provide them with an idea that is even more religiously appealing to them than their current scientific beliefs.

(There are exceptions: Einstein was eventually persuaded by the facts to accept quantum theory).

An alternative is to focus on scientists (or pre-scientists) who have not firmly adopted any scientific religious beliefs.

I liked the style employed in explaining and introducing science on the Technocracy Inc Study Course. www.archive.org/details/TechnocracyStudyCourseUnabridged

Groups like BioCurious have flourished with community based hands on science projects involving all generations! www.kickstarter.com/projects/1040581998/...iotech-the-community

FabLabs have sprouted up in many cities too en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fab_lab

Intervening in STEM outreach and conducting our own is an option to considered in lowering perceived fears of science.

Dan Fahey wrote:


I love this idea. I've been looking into something similar for energy. If anyone else is working on this (or wants to), let's talk.


I feel that energy is often neglected in STEM outreach, in part because it is not the primary focus of S T E or M. I've had this problem at my own university. We discussed creating an energy center, but there was considerable opposition from certain departments because they felt it was a distraction from their core mission.

In the USA, the collapse of much of the alternative energy equipment manufacturing (due to competition from China) culminating in the Obama Solyndra scandal has further drawn interest away from energy.

We need a powerful, new message to re-engage the interest of educators and the public. Or an irresistible educational approach. Or an amazing publicity stunt such as the Canadian teenagers' Lego Man in Space.