Dr. Tyson, what is scientific literacy, and should a stellar scientific communicator focus his efforts on filling in the most dangerous holes in it? In the 2010 World Science Festival (video) you at first suggested science literacy was, in effect, knowing what questions to ask a purveyor of "healing power" crystals, but at the end you suggested* that science literacy meant understanding enough about science to vote as an informed citizen. Which of these two arenas is more important?
And if the public has become confused about an issue of monumental importance, with monumental consequences and monumental opposition to public literacy on the issue, who should be communicating to them about it?
* From the video, at 5:47, "You don't have to be a scientist, but at least understand what's going on in the world that is shaped [by decisions]...scientific decisions inform political decisions, and you all vote. I'm here to get you excited enough about science that you want to become scientifically literate.".
Wanted and desperately needed: A climate version of Neil deGrasse Tyson.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Welcome, and thanks for caring enough to donate your time and thoughts toward greater collective wisdom...
Terms of engagement:
* Please be civil.
* * * * Please do not post anonymously * * * (I'd remove this choice if I could, and I may remove your comment if you do) - instead, do this:
Click on the 'Name/URL' radiobutton, then enter your real name (if you're brave) or a pseudonym (if you're not). (You can leave the "URL" field blank.)
Or go ahead and click "Anonymous", but put your name in your comment.
* The Management reserves the right to delete comments (Moderation Certificate can be found here). You can always post it on a blog of your own.
If you run into technical difficulties, please a) accept my apologies, then b) email your comment to aherror2011 at gmail.com with "Comment for [name of this blog]" in the Subject line.
New policy re climate contrarianism comments as of 11/11/2009:
Comments questioning the climate science community's understanding of climate change (97% of active climatologists now believe that the earth is currently warming and that it's human-caused - link) will be deleted unless the commenter:
a) is local
b) uses his real name
c) provides link(s) to substantiate his claim(s)/inference(s)
d) is willing to collaborate on constructing an argument tree, to get us past the usual sterile point-counterpoint-countercounterpoint.
(For people who can't read the above, a summary:
1) Be civil;
2) Don't post w/o giving at least a pseudonym;
3) Don't espouse climate-denial crankery unless you're local and willing to stand behind it.)
Caveats:
1. Comments could be delayed: they are being moderated, and I'm sometimes away from the computer for a day or more.
2. : Perfectly legitimate comments are sometimes miscategorized (by the blogging platform) as spam, & not published. If this happens to yours, please notify me, else I might not notice for a day or two.