Saturday, December 02, 2006
The image of science
Mathematical organizations have long been concerned with the perilous state of math education... at least in countries like the US. Not surprisingly, liberal arts math courses (under the euphemism "quantitative literacy" courses) have faced a lot of criticism. And they should.
There are courses akin to those in science, as well. "Physics for Poets", "Physics for Future Presidents," "Great Ideas in Physics", etc. I don't see the point of them. You can't learn a lot of math (or physics) without doing math. Just because one has heard of P vs. NP, or 26-dimensional string theory, etc. doesn't mean one knows anything about them.
Which is why the physics blogs get invaded by crackpots and know-nothings.
Maybe the purpose of quantitative/scientific literacy courses is to deter liberal arts students from even thinking about a career in science. Maybe the physics controversies have dissuaded pessimistic people from wanting to study anything the real way. "If physics is in trouble, why should I learn about it? I can just take a survey course instead, so I can consider myself qualified as a science critic. I can write articles about how these geeky maladjusts can't solve anything, even though they've spent... oh, ten years of their lives studying this stuff. Yet I can take one course and comment on how stupid they are!"
Of course, not all science critics are this simple-minded. The vast majority of them are, but it wasn't always this way.
The Unabomber's Manifesto mentions, in Paragraphs 87-92, that science really isn't concerned with the benefit of humanity... it's just a self-important enterprise. "Thus science marches on blindly...obedient only to the psychological needs of the scientists..." Not surprisingly, the manifesto alarmed a lot of scientists. But this article from New Scientist, published ten years ago, proves that many scientists weren't terribly affected by it. Leon Lederman (who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1988, and founded the "Physics First" movement) was even quoted: "When it comes to moral outrage, we have a great tolerance. Look at the executives of tobacco companies. The Unabomber is an ineffective pipsqueak compared to what they do."
If only more scientists realized that the negative science journalists are just "ineffective pipsqueaks"...
Of course, the Unabomber's Manifesto is a classic example of hypocrisy... isn't it odd how someone who sent mail bombs to universities and killed people to promote an anti-technology agenda could comment on how science doesn't benefit humanity? Isn't it odd that he asks how Edward Teller could have developed the H-bomb if he was concerned about "humanitarian causes"?
Unless Dr. Theodore Kaczynski thought geometric function theory was more beneficial to humanity... ¶ 2:50 PM
There are courses akin to those in science, as well. "Physics for Poets", "Physics for Future Presidents," "Great Ideas in Physics", etc. I don't see the point of them. You can't learn a lot of math (or physics) without doing math. Just because one has heard of P vs. NP, or 26-dimensional string theory, etc. doesn't mean one knows anything about them.
Which is why the physics blogs get invaded by crackpots and know-nothings.
Maybe the purpose of quantitative/scientific literacy courses is to deter liberal arts students from even thinking about a career in science. Maybe the physics controversies have dissuaded pessimistic people from wanting to study anything the real way. "If physics is in trouble, why should I learn about it? I can just take a survey course instead, so I can consider myself qualified as a science critic. I can write articles about how these geeky maladjusts can't solve anything, even though they've spent... oh, ten years of their lives studying this stuff. Yet I can take one course and comment on how stupid they are!"
Of course, not all science critics are this simple-minded. The vast majority of them are, but it wasn't always this way.
The Unabomber's Manifesto mentions, in Paragraphs 87-92, that science really isn't concerned with the benefit of humanity... it's just a self-important enterprise. "Thus science marches on blindly...obedient only to the psychological needs of the scientists..." Not surprisingly, the manifesto alarmed a lot of scientists. But this article from New Scientist, published ten years ago, proves that many scientists weren't terribly affected by it. Leon Lederman (who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1988, and founded the "Physics First" movement) was even quoted: "When it comes to moral outrage, we have a great tolerance. Look at the executives of tobacco companies. The Unabomber is an ineffective pipsqueak compared to what they do."
If only more scientists realized that the negative science journalists are just "ineffective pipsqueaks"...
Of course, the Unabomber's Manifesto is a classic example of hypocrisy... isn't it odd how someone who sent mail bombs to universities and killed people to promote an anti-technology agenda could comment on how science doesn't benefit humanity? Isn't it odd that he asks how Edward Teller could have developed the H-bomb if he was concerned about "humanitarian causes"?
Unless Dr. Theodore Kaczynski thought geometric function theory was more beneficial to humanity... ¶ 2:50 PM
