Comments on: Time for Science to Reclaim Its Progressive Roots http://scienceprogress.org/2009/03/science-next-excerpt/ Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:59:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: jenlogan http://scienceprogress.org/2009/03/science-next-excerpt/comment-page-1/#comment-5465 jenlogan Sun, 14 Jun 2009 17:45:43 +0000 http://www.scienceprogress.org/?p=2038#comment-5465 I am one parent who is working very hard to change how we teach science in public elementary schools. Most elementary students leave elementary school without doing any experimental science. They are not grabbed early and we lose them. I am currently not paid and until recently viewed by the school as that crazy parent but am slowly changing the attitude on our school site. Science will always be held back if our youth are not engaged early. This is not done by operating a cell phone or computer system . There is a difference between using and creating. How many kids can tell you the science behind the technology? As long as science is treated as a poor step child by the elementary schools our children will not possess the interest in being scientifically progressive. I am one parent who is working very hard to change how we teach science in public elementary schools. Most elementary students leave elementary school without doing any experimental science. They are not grabbed early and we lose them. I am currently not paid and until recently viewed by the school as that crazy parent but am slowly changing the attitude on our school site. Science will always be held back if our youth are not engaged early. This is not done by operating a cell phone or computer system . There is a difference between using and creating. How many kids can tell you the science behind the technology? As long as science is treated as a poor step child by the elementary schools our children will not possess the interest in being scientifically progressive.

]]> By: David L. Baker http://scienceprogress.org/2009/03/science-next-excerpt/comment-page-1/#comment-4723 David L. Baker Sun, 29 Mar 2009 18:45:26 +0000 http://www.scienceprogress.org/?p=2038#comment-4723 We have a great SYSTEM of paying people to research the same thing over and over. Look at the DOE research. Innovation would upset the whole SYSTEM. Some people are making equiptment to convert organic waste in fuels. They of course are not part of SYSTEM. Dave We have a great SYSTEM of paying people to research the
same thing over and over. Look at the DOE research.

Innovation would upset the whole SYSTEM.

Some people are making equiptment to convert organic
waste in fuels. They of course are not part of SYSTEM.

Dave

]]> By: john maccabe http://scienceprogress.org/2009/03/science-next-excerpt/comment-page-1/#comment-4595 john maccabe Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:23:25 +0000 http://www.scienceprogress.org/?p=2038#comment-4595 Science must be transparent to the public and democratic. It cannot be held hostage every four or eight years to hostile dictators or dishonest and egotistical politicians. These new and challenging frontiers you speak of need to be explained to average people and even to some scientists.Much more care must be taken with these experiments and visionary themes. Too much is at risk. Values, the precautionary principle and some thought to the consequences are good starting points in informing the public of the hazards we will experience in this new frontier. Hazards that may not be easily avoidable but avoidable if we use reason and as you say maintain a sense of stewardship for humanity and the planet. Science must be transparent to the public and democratic. It cannot be held hostage every four or eight years to hostile dictators or dishonest and egotistical politicians. These new and challenging frontiers you speak of need to be explained to average people and even to some scientists.Much more care must be taken with these experiments and visionary themes. Too much is at risk. Values, the precautionary principle and some thought to the consequences are good starting points in informing the public of the hazards we will experience in this new frontier. Hazards that may not be easily avoidable but avoidable if we use reason and as you say maintain a sense of stewardship for humanity and the planet.

]]> By: Theodore Brown http://scienceprogress.org/2009/03/science-next-excerpt/comment-page-1/#comment-4575 Theodore Brown Fri, 13 Mar 2009 02:23:35 +0000 http://www.scienceprogress.org/?p=2038#comment-4575 This is a fine statement, if a bit vague on just what is meant by some references and terms. Yes, of course, science is of huge instrumental importance, and yes, we should develop existing avenues for availing ourselves of science's expertise with respect to a host of problems that demand our attention as a democratic society. One of the impediments, though, is that so many members of this society have no real idea of how to evaluate what science has to say on so many topics of importance. I don't mean how to evaluate the detailed scientific arguments presented in support of scientific opinion on a given topic, say global warming. Rather, how to evaluate the processes that science employs in arriving at its best guess as to the truth of a matter: how that process is organized and governed, what it means to talk about consensus in science, how to evaluate the degrees of uncertainty that accompany any predictions of future events and trends, and how science's ways of approaching the search for truth differ from those of other societal sectors. This requires an educational process we have not yet learned to effectuate. In the article there is a reference to anti-authoritarian sentiments, and I know the sense in which that is meant. On the other hand, however, authority that is exercised in an atmosphere of unforced acceptance is at the heart of science's effectiveness in society. To exercise an epistemic authority, and from that to move to a moral authority in participating in the affairs of society, is essential if science is to play the role in modern life that it should. I've talked about that in a forthcoming book: http://www.psupress.org/books/titles/978-0-271-03535-2.html I look forward to reading the new book. This is a fine statement, if a bit vague on just what is meant by some references and terms. Yes, of course, science is of huge instrumental importance, and yes, we should develop existing avenues for availing ourselves of science’s expertise with respect to a host of problems that demand our attention as a democratic society. One of the impediments, though, is that so many members of this society have no real idea of how to evaluate what science has to say on so many topics of importance. I don’t mean how to evaluate the detailed scientific arguments presented in support of scientific opinion on a given topic, say global warming. Rather, how to evaluate the processes that science employs in arriving at its best guess as to the truth of a matter: how that process is organized and governed, what it means to talk about consensus in science, how to evaluate the degrees of uncertainty that accompany any predictions of future events and trends, and how science’s ways of approaching the search for truth differ from those of other societal sectors. This requires an educational process we have not yet learned to effectuate.
In the article there is a reference to anti-authoritarian sentiments, and I know the sense in which that is meant. On the other hand, however, authority that is exercised in an atmosphere of unforced acceptance is at the heart of science’s effectiveness in society. To exercise an epistemic authority, and from that to move to a moral authority in participating in the affairs of society, is essential if science is to play the role in modern life that it should. I’ve talked about that in a forthcoming book:
http://www.psupress.org/books/titles/978-0-271-03535-2.html
I look forward to reading the new book.

]]>