Science Trivia Illiteracy

I saw this bit bemoaning “science illiteracy”. Reading it, I was reminded of Feynman’s Map of the Cat story. Relevant excerpt:

I began to read the paper. It kept talking about extensors and flexors, the gastrocnemius muscle, and so on. This and that muscle were named, but I hadn’t the foggiest idea of where they were located in relation to the nerves or to the cat. So I went to the librarian in the biology section and asked her if she could find me a map of the cat.

“A map of the cat, sir?” she asked, horrified. “You mean a zoological chart!” From then on there were rumors about some dumb biology graduate student who was looking for a “map of the cat.”

When it came time for me to give my talk on the subject, I started off by drawing an outline of the cat and began to name the various muscles.

The other students in the class interrupt me: “We know all that!”

“Oh,” I say, “you do? Then no wonder I can catch up with you so fast after you’ve had four years of biology.” They had wasted all their time memorizing stuff like that, when it could be looked up in fifteen minutes.

This is a b.s. criticism, of course. Fact is that these biology students knew the anatomy of a cat as much from doing tons of work with mammals as from spending long nights memorizing the physiology. I’m sure it also pays to commit a lot of technical stuff to memory, since you can draw on that while you’re looking for something new, and it helps you sort out what the important bits are for whatever you are currently working on. Surely Feynman would have been frustrated in the same way the biology students were if he had to listen to a lecture that started with the naming of the parts of an atom.

But the moral of the story is dead on. Science doesn’t mean memorizing “facts”. It isn’t a trivia game of gigantic proportions. Science means figuring out how things work. And while Americans certainly lack the skills to do that as much as they lack knowledge of science trivia, a measurement of the latter doesn’t necessarily bear on the former.

I don’t know to what degree a scientifically literate populace is important. It seems very desirable to me. I think a close acquaintance with the methods of science can help sharpen what we call “common sense” – help us figure out how “things work” that we have to mess with every day. But, only a lucky few of us get to “do science” in the sense of really extending human knowledge about how things work. For the rest of us, a science education may not be all that pragmatic, and others may not see it as desirable as I do.

I think the minimum we should ask is that kids graduate high school having enough understanding of the process that they know whether they want to try to go that route in their careers, and that they have a chance of success if they do. They should also have enough practice in using mathematics with the computational tools of science that they can discern if they want to go into a related field, and enough that they can succeed if they choose to.

I don’t need a survey of science literacy (or of science trivia literacy) to tell me that a lot of kids don’t graduate from school with that. I just want to be clear on what the desirable goal is – the understanding of scientific process and the ability to solve basic problems using scientific and mathematical tools, not a catalog of interesting but useless “facts”.

Oh – and it also wouldn’t hurt to have enough of same to be able to evaluate public controversies over important scientific phenomena… like climate change and creationism. But I don’t want to get over optimistic.

7 comments to Science Trivia Illiteracy

  • [...] said so before before, and given my thoughts on what does qualify [...]

  • jan

    Oh – and it also wouldn’t hurt to have enough of same to be able to evaluate public controversies over important scientific phenomena… like climate change and creationism. But I don’t want to get over optimistic.

    If you are referring to skills and methods of obtaining information, this is exactly what teaching and educating students should be about. In far too many classrooms, students are being told “what” to think and believe rather than “how” to think and apply information that has been presented.

    Granted students need some guidance in developing a value system and how to live in a society, however, when it comes to science, math, language arts, or the core curriculum, methods and skills should be taught.

    When a student has been taught skills and is given the tools needed, when ideas are allowed to flow, that student then begins to question and evaluate information acquired. At this point, learning occurs.

  • If you are referring to skills and methods of obtaining information,

    If I mean that, then I don’t mean exclusively in the sense of being able to use a card catalog and The Google. Without a strong set of critical thinking skills, any fact finding mission is doomed from the start. But, I think I don’t mean that at all – I think what I mean is the skills and methods of discovering new information – specifically about how nature behaves – and of evaluating the reliability of a point of view – more specifically “scientific” skills.

  • jan

    Do you mean skills that include using the scientific method of discovery and analyzing information. Those are a part of the GA curriculum along with reading, using, and constructing charts, graphs, tables and diagrams, classifying information and catergorizing facts and information. I would include drawing conclusions, identifying the variables in a situation, and determining the properties of an object or event. These are all important, but unless a student has been taught reading skills and does learn how to use a card catalog and do research, they will not be able to advance with any curriculum.

    evaluating the “reliability” of a point of view

    I do not recall this being included in any curriculum or list of objectives. Could you give me an example of what you are thinking?

  • Don’t get me wrong – I’m for teaching library research. It’s just that library research is useless without critical thinking skills. That’s because so many publications one can find dealing with any given subject using library research are not only unhelpful but sometimes downright misleading. Critical thinking guides all forms of research be it in the library, in the lab, or in the field – and without them, it’s unlikely that any kind of research will be fruitful.

  • jan

    I agree tht critical teaching skills should be taught, and that is actually a part of the language arts curriculum. Of course, the one teaching it has a lot to do with how much the students actually retain. It is taught in the objectives that include ‘drawing conclusions’, ‘recognizing cause and effect relationships’, ‘making inferences’, and ‘recognizing bias and underlying motives’. Students are expected to gain skills than enable them to use critical thinking skills in all subjects. Students remain, however, quite susceptible to being taught what to think rather than how to think. It has a lot to do with maturity and interest levels.

    Are you still thinking you might like to teach? It sounds as if you might become a great teacher if you want to teach children to think critically and to recognize bias when it is present.

  • Thank you for all your valuable effort on this web page. Ellie takes pleasure in getting into research and it’s really easy to understand why. A number of us learn all concerning the powerful form you present helpful tactics via your blog and attract contribution from other ones on that article then our favorite child is without question learning a lot of things. Take advantage of the remaining portion of the year. You’re the one doing a useful job.

Leave a Reply




You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>