Physicists are dumb...
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
eye_of_a_cat's question the other day when I suddenly realized that I shouldn't have to. Someone else should answer it for me. But they didn't. Because physicists are dumb. And physicists are dumb because all scientists are dumb. We did it to ourselves. So I have to rant about it in a semi-coherent fashion.Physicists are dumb. As scientists go, however, they aren't that dumb. They're behind biologists and applied scientists, in most cases, but usually ahead of chemists, who are ahead of mathematicians. This is not so much a consequence of their work as it is a consequence of their training. Physicists are dumb because nobody ever told them how to be smart.
In the United States essentially everyone engaged in basic research (the broad, overarching term that encompasses all research into the natural properties of the universe not currently known) works for the US government, and by extension, for the public trust. We are paid by grants which are in turn funded by taxpayers, to the tune of some $26.8 billion dollars a year. That is a lot of money (although it is significantly less than 1% of the US GDP). With it comes a great deal of responsibility.
Relatively speaking, the people get a good deal out of this. Scientists working on basic research actually produce something, which puts them ahead of the Department of Homeland Security. They also spend a lot of time doing it. This is in contrast to the INS, where 73% of the employees have been on a coffee break since 1995, or the Department of Transportation, which randomly shuts down roads and airports just to see if they still remember how to do it. I am paid for twenty hours of research work a week, of which I spend forty-five hours behind my desk, and multiple hours monitoring from home. Many people work over eighty hours a week.
Unfortunately, this is all marred by the basic fact that physicists, and scientists in general, are stupid. We spend billions of taxpayer dollars a year to provide basic research into the fundamental mysteries of the universe, into new technological applications, and into groundbreaking inventions, and we do not have the damnedest idea of how to explain it. Even worse, we do not want to learn. Biologists and applied scientists have learned how to explain themselves somewhat, physicists content themselves with diagrams of strings and galaxies blowing up, chemists try to explain what they do, and nobody has a clue about mathematicians. The scientific social contract essentially reads:
“We will take billions of dollars from your pockets, in return for which we shall produce thousands of pages of unintelligible gobbledygook that may or may not have actual meaning.”
The average physicist can no more explain the purpose of their research to Joe Average than they can recite all the Shakespearean Sonnets from memory. In some ways this is reasonable; it can take years of study to understand even part of quantum mechanics. In other ways, and in my humble opinion, it is an absolutely horrible and ridiculous stance. Disdain Joe Average if you want, but remember that he pays your bills. Our inability to explain things to him has caused us more trouble than we want to admit.
Let us face the music. Science has power. The wonders it has created and the miracles it has performed guarantee this. But science has not been able to step up, and nature abhors a vacuum. If we cannot explain ourselves, then someone else will. And many people are only too willing to use the perceived power of science, misunderstood by the public, to line their pockets or to push their ideology. The result is a series of conflicts that no extends the length and breadth of the field.
Evolution by natural selection, the core mechanism of macrobiology is under attack by Intelligent Design's brand of pseudoscience in the west, and the subject of derision by Hindutva supporters and Islamic fundamentalists. Medical science is at the same time being criticized for not being able to understand crystal healing, auras, homeopathy, and animal telepathy. Even though the Science Wars have mostly ended, the Post-Structuralists are still active, prompting wary concern from physical scientists. Astronomers are continually accused of being in league with the big conspiracy, either manufacturing the Big Bang for their secularist overlords, faking the moon landing, or covering up evidence of UFOs. A casual look at James Randi's page reveals a list of “free energy” devices and other fantastically marketed doodads as long as my arm. The charlatans have come out of the woodwork, and are now selling snake oil from the local pharmacy.
Science, which does occasionally see itself as under siege by the ignorant masses, often fails to understand how much of this they could have averted through education. Many who argue against pseudoscience point out flaws in arguments that freshman students should understand, without understanding themselves that most people simply do not understand any science even at the freshman level. At the same time, they get worried that the public will not support their latest funding initiative, whose purpose even they cannot explain. Scientists are often portrayed as being off on their own lofty cloud, unconnected to, and ignorant of, the world around them. As long as they continue to fit this mold, it will not get any better.
We will not get the International Linear Collider unless we can tell people why it is necessary. We will never get rid of Intelligent Design until people understand the scientific method and why it works. We will never get rid of even a fraction of fake remedies until people know what a double blind test is, how to run one, what the placebo effects is, and how statistics works. Mathematicians will still be harassed by the funding agencies unless they can explain why what they do is important. And we will never get the Lunar Base unless we can take a case to the public and the government that explains our future.
The point has ultimately arrived where public ignorance of the progress and purpose of science is not only harmful to the field, it also promotes an entire litter of pseudoscientific disciplines that suck away time, money, and brainpower. We cannot expect to overcome these barriers unless we can explain why our experiments are important, how our methods work, and what new things we have uncovered. And if we can do none of that, perhaps we do not deserve success.
no subject
Has science literacy amongst the general public really declined, though? Was the general public more interested in science in the past, or just interested in the products of science? Victorian spiritualism thrived alongside major strides in biology, chemistry and physics, for example. I'm not certain that the crackery has necessarily grown more pronounced. It may just be more visible due to the current political regime.
While I agree that science needs to explain itself better I'm not certain the general public is interested in listening unless it can somehow be made important to them for reasons other than intellectual curiosity. The same is true of matters such as international politics. Ask the average person about the conflict in Nepal and many won't have heard about it. On the other hand people appear to me more naturally interested (on the whole) in matters like the affairs of celebrities. How does one package science to be more appealing? Pay Angelina Joli to wear clothes featuring drawings of molecules perhaps? Perhaps it's not that science isn't explaining itself well enough, but that it lacks sex appeal. While I would fervently like to believe that people generally would be interested in science and the message just needs to be reformulated for greater clarity to bolster understanding and appeal, the pessimistic part of me isn't so sure.
no subject
First is that I think that the gap between common knowledge and the scientific frontier is now too large to bridge by conventional means. And I believe that this gap will always grow larger. Eventually, science is going to have to either cut lose from civilian supervision whatsoever (which is an unreasonable expectation), or they will have to make people more capable of learning on their own. This will require a paradigm shift in how science is taught in schools, and it will require a much easier-to-use outreach framework.
Second is that I think that science may actually need some evangelism. There are powers who bring things like Nepal to our attention. On the other hand, scientists seem notoriously adverse to their own public relations. I think this behavior is self-destructive. I can't guarantee that people will come flocking, but I have met a lot of people who think that what we do is neat, but can't find anything explaining about it. Part of this requires science to be better at reaching out to its public. You'll never get everybody, but you do have to make it easier to access.
Just as a note, I think scientific literacy has declined, but possibly only in a minor fashion, and I believe that this may be on a generation-length cycle. I do, however, not have any evidence of any sort to back that up.
no subject
I do a great deal of talking with curious members of the public, as do my colleagues. We actually do see the results in terms of the acceptance and support from most of the public. Of course there are always those who disagree, but that's not a bad thing. Actually we've surprised some parties by explaining the disagreements we have amongst ourselves, so that they have come to realize that we *don't* have all the answers and are learning as we go. The time commitment for this is quite staggering, however. Realistically it's also only effective on a local level, and frankly it cuts into our work time. Perhaps there needs to be new amalgamation of science and management as a career: the scientifically trained P.R. person.
no subject
We need to spend more time on outreach, but there aren't enough scientists or scientifically trained people for that. Maybe if we could do a better job in education...but that would require more commitment from us as instructors. Quite frankly, I'm at a loss. All I can do is highlight the problem. Solutions will come later.
no subject
I know that I find the current trend of streaming students who aren't destined for the sciences into a single general "science" course (as opposed to the individual disciplines) in high school troubling. In theory it teaches a little of chemistry, physics, and biology. While this is a benefit when only two sciences are actually required for graduation, so that one isn't completely neglected, I can't escape the (perhaps mistaken) conviction that neither biology, chemistry, or physics can be adequately taught without devoting at least a semester to each exclusively. I wish I had some effective solutions to offer to the dilemma, but aside from saying "Teach more! Teach better!" I don't know that the answer is, either.