by winston » Sat Sep 12, 2009 7:54 pm
The Literature of Truth by Alexander Green, Spiritual Wealth
According to Dr. Jon D. Miller, Director of the Center for Biomedical Communications at Northwestern Medical School, the number of scientifically literate adults in the U.S. has doubled over the past 20 years.
The bad news? That only gets us up to 20%.
Polls show that only 48% of Americans know that humans didn't live at the same time as dinosaurs. Less than half know that electrons are smaller than atoms. Only small minorities know what DNA is or can define a molecule.
(Citizens of other nations don't fare much better, incidentally. Members of the European Union, for example, actually score worse.)
Science has been called the literature of truth, the systematic classification of experience, the antidote to enthusiasm and superstition.
We live in a world highly dependent on the fruits of science. Yet polls show that most of us have little scientific knowledge and lack even a superficial understanding of the enterprise itself.
Does this matter?
Yes. Without some minimal scientific understanding, we can't possibly have informed opinions on important issues. We surrender our ability to participate as responsible citizens in society.
Uncle Sam, for instance, spends more than $100 billion annually on science agencies, university laboratories and grants for independent research. Most of us - including our elected representatives - know very little about where this money is going or why.
Yet there is an even more compelling reason we should remedy our ignorance in this area: Scientific illiteracy diminishes the quality of our lives.
For most of human history, our ancestors looked up at the sky at night and never realized the twinkling lights were other suns unimaginably far away.
We created myths to explain the phases of the moon, the appearance of comets, meteor showers and solar eclipses. Floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, plagues and volcanic eruptions were attributed to angry gods.
Our ancestors hadn't the slightest inkling that the universe is nearly 15 billion years old or that our sun is one of 400 billion stars in the Milky Way, itself one of hundreds of billions of galaxies.
Of course, few scientific truths are self-evident. Many are counterintuitive. It is by no means obvious, for example, that empty space has structure or that everything is made of the same basic elements.
Science writer Isaac Asimov once noted that we are among the tiny fraction of one percent of human beings fortunate enough to live in the era where science finally got the big questions right.
Until Einstein worked them out between 1905 and 1916, we didn't know the basic rules that govern the universe.
We didn't realize the universe itself is expanding before Edwin Hubble discovered it in 1923.
We didn't understand the mind-bending rules that govern subatomic particles until the advent of quantum theory around the same time.
Of course, science makes no claim to truth with a capital T. All scientific knowledge is provisional, subject to revision.
But science is successful, in part, because it acknowledges human failings. It knows that pride, ignorance, and prejudice can send us off the rails.
Yet the scientific method - with its error-correcting mechanisms - advances knowledge through reason and evidence, rejecting authority, overturning misconceptions and revealing successive approximations of the truth.
Today the basic picture is complete. No future scientist, we can safely say, will disprove the principles of chemistry, the germ theory of disease, or the interrelatedness of all life on earth.
Yet despite all that science tells us - knowledge that would astonish our ancestors just a few generations removed - many smart, talented people can't be bothered to learn.
We appreciate the countless medical and technological benefits that extend and improve our lives. But most of us know very little about the history of the cosmos... or life on earth.
And that can't help but diminish our awareness and understanding.
Fortunately, it isn't hard to change that. Here are just a few suggestions:
Subscribe to Scientific American. I read this magazine years ago and, quite frankly, found it tough sledding. But today the magazine is much changed and improved. It is written primarily for non-specialists. Jargon is minimal or concisely explained. Most articles begin with a short summary of the key concepts and findings. And the terrific monthly columns by science historian Michael Shermer and physicist Lawrence Krauss alone justify a subscription.
Rent or collect the fabulous BBC documentaries with naturalist David Attenborough, especially "Planet Earth," "The Trials of Life," "Blue Planet," "Life On Earth," and "The Living Planet." (Astronomer Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" series is still a classic too, nearly 30 years on.)
For a crash course, read The Canon: A Whirligig Tour of the Beautiful Basics of Science by Natalie Angier or - if you prefer your science served with hilarity - A Short History of Nearly Everything by the best writer alive, Bill Bryson.
Science, in essence, is just a tool, a window on the truth.
There are, of course, other forms of human intellectual endeavor - religion, art, philosophy and literature - whose expressions of human truth can be neither confirmed nor denied by scientific methods.
But without critical thinking, without the skeptical evaluation of claims, we become susceptible to pseudoscience, quack medical advice, nonsense and mumbo jumbo. Carl Sagan often referred to science as our "baloney-detection kit."
And there are other benefits. Science teaches us wonder, community, oneness... and humility.
Paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould once remarked that the one common feature of all scientific revolutions is the dethronement of human arrogance.
Without natural science, we may also miss great beauty and understanding.
In Unweaving the Rainbow, Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins writes:
"After sleeping through a hundred million centuries we have finally opened our eyes on a sumptuous planet, sparkling with color, bountiful with life. Within decades we must close our eyes again. Isn't it a noble, an enlightened way of spending our brief time in the sun, to work at understanding the universe and how we have come to wake up in it?... Who, with such a thought, would not spring from bed, eager to resume discovering the world and rejoicing to be a part of it?"
It's all about "how much you made when you were right" & "how little you lost when you were wrong"