Tyson has an admirably clear way of expressing himself. However, several times he mentioned the problem that scientists speak in jargon.
While this could be a problem I believe the problem starts on a much more basic level when trying to communicate science:
The public lacks basic concepts, paradigms, and procedural knowledge that are prerequisites to understanding reports on science.
Or one could say: Nobody’s done their homework. The reason discussions about politics are often more inclusive (meaning that more people can participate in them reasonably well) is because there is a decent level of understanding. Not so in science.
Perhaps the best way to change this, as Tyson mentions, is in fact reading a book written by a scientist (watching good TV may help, too). Reading ‘long form’ gives the author space to delve into concepts, talk about the everyday work and procedures, including the frustrations, lack of progress, and human factors.
But let’s face it: science ain’t easy, and people ain’t terribly smart. By that I mean: on average, people’s ability to understand science are just average. If scientific literacy for the masses is indeed our goal much will depend on both a more efficient teaching of science in school and smarter packaging and delivery of science contents to adults.
Side note: I smell a business opportunity here for someone who likes to think big: go and instigate building science museums in Asia. DJ mentioned they have almost none (like 7!) but they’d definitively have the audience for it.
… smarter packaging and delivery of science contents to adults.
I’ve said it before here, but I highly recommend the courses from The Teaching Company, which includes quite an extensive list of science courses. There’s even one taught by Neil Tyson himself!
(I haven’t seen it, but I’m sure it’s great).
Look forward to listening to the interview in the next few days. Tyson is one of my favorites.
There are several brilliant themes Neil Tyson touched on. One is that cultural science literacy is not a good correlate to the culture’s scientific contributions. I think that the educational assumption that it is a good correlate is thinly supported. Massimo Pigliucci has expressed concerns about how science is taught as well, objecting to the move to turn science education into something of a flashcard cram of modern science facts. It’s worth asking ourselves if that isn’t exactly why other countries show better on general knowledge tests but not at the high end of the spectrum, and give ourselves a pat on the back that we can cultivate good scientists despite all the crappy science curriculums turning students off of science left and right. The science I had in high school was as boring as it comes--because of the textbooks probably.
Another concept raised is how science needs to step up to the plate and communicate better with the general public. In any other field, I expect professionals to be able to explain things without the jargon--if they can’t explain it without the jargon, I’m suspicious they don’t fundamentally understand how it relates in the so-called “real world” themselves. And if it’s not translatable to the “real world”, science is left trying to sell its message as a dogma--which is of course anathema to the fundamental idea of science.
Though I really do wish we could stop pumping the ratchet with alarmisms like “Secularism and Its Enemies”. It’s uncomfortably close kin to buzzwords like “Axis of Evil” and such. Secularism is in a more comfortable position now than at any time in memory, so instead of being on the defensive it resonates more as bullying.
For the most part Tyson is right on the mark. But, as quite often occurs in interviews by DJ Grothe, there are gratuitous swipes at Dawkins, et al. I know DJ is into the framing issue and all that, and I realize that Tyson’s bailiwick is the communication of science especially. But the science classroom is not the only place that religion and fundamentalism keep trying to invade. It has successfully invaded the political realm, the military (e.g., the christian embassy in the Pentagon), and is aggressive on other fronts as well. Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett and others aim their attacks on this wider front, and only in response to the aggression exercised by the religionists. Sure, pick your battles, but be ready to fight on more fronts than just the scientific front.
Hal Tritz
Zarcus-Point well taken. A second listen-to confirms your take on it. I think I may have been extrapolating from what DJ said this time to what I expected he would say based on some prior interviews, for example (if my memory serves we), in the interview with Carol Tavris, as well as a few others. I don’t, however, consider DJ playing devil’s advocate in this case, because he didn’t present the counterpoint to Tyson’s known viewpoint as perhaps a better argument.
I just want to chime in quickly to clarify: personally, I am completely persuaded by Dawkins’ position and uncompromising stance, and share his agenda to raise consciousness for atheist issues, and to diminish religion’s hold on people. Even so, I think that other voices as regards how to best advance science education merit attention, knowing full well that this is sometimes a completely different agenda than advancing atheism and working to reduce the influence of religion in society and public life.
I just want to chime in quickly to clarify: personally, I am completely persuaded by Dawkins’ position and uncompromising stance, and share his agenda to raise consciousness for atheist issues, and to diminish religion’s hold on people. Even so, I think that other voices as regards how to best advance science education merit attention, knowing full well that this is sometimes a completely different agenda than advancing atheism and working to reduce the influence of religion in society and public life.
That’s encouraging. However, don’t you think “raising consciousness for atheist issues” is a bit confusing. The only atheist issue I am aware of is that there are some folks who believe in a deity and some who don’t. Things like church-state separation, science education, even the criticism of some of the claims made by religions and the negative influences religions sometimes have on the minds of individuals and the conduct of groups aren’t really atheist issues at all.
On one issue I do take some exception to your guests comments. When Neil deGrasse Tyson says he has never been an “ism,” I think he is right. However, I do call myself an “atheist” in certain contexts and on certain occassions. That’s not because I think I’m an “ism” or that I am defined by atheism. It’s because the word is an economical description of my attitude toward god-belief. I don’t have any. Folks who criticize the use of the word “atheism” because they “don’t want to be defined by a negative” are missing the point. Each of us wears many labels in life. No one of those labels defines us. I am no more defined by the word “atheist” than I am defined by the word “reader.”
Tyson called himself an “agnostic.” Does he thinks that word defines him?
However, once again, this was an excellent interview. Now I’ve added a few more titles to the list of books I need to read.
If you really want to get science to the masses, you should look to the what has been successful on the internet. What gets donwloaded the most and draws in the attention of those watching it.
Basically, if you could get small chunks of science into online porn movies, the science literacy rates would increase dramatically.
Tyson calls it a mystery of the universe when DJ asked him why he thinks the US achieved great scientific achievements in the 20th century.
The US was irrelevant to the rest of the world before the WWI. All this began to change when in the 20’s the European intellectuals started to immigrate to America. It had nothing to do with the education or anything else of that sort. The same thing happened with Renaissance in Italy in the 14 century and the 17th-century Enlightenment in Holland.
