Scientific Discoveries being pushed under the bush? (school project)

[Coldknock]

Hello fellow science forums members (I'm new, so this is my first post)! I have a project for school, English class, that requires me to state publicly something that I feel is being neglected or is destroying or traditional values or abilities (ex. cellphones for the current generation, are they taking away from social abilities?). Mine has to do with science which is why I came here. I'm 18 by the way, just so you all get a picture of where I'm coming from.

 

The topic I would like to discuss with you guys (if this is the wrong forum then please move this to the right section) is: Are the modern discoveries in science or advancements being 'pushed under the bush'? Are people not seeing what we have accomplished due to modern form of news?

 

Now for my opinion: I feel that the discoveries that the scientific community is making aren't being advertised as well as they should be. Maybe if they were there would be more funding for science programs then military (my idea of a perfect world). But, I follow /science /sci you know, all the reputable science forums and I feel when I'm talking to people that they just don't seem to know even the basic information they should on discoveries. Most people I talk to they are 10-15 years behind on news, which is astounding to me. Others see my fear as well Seth MacFarlane for example, rebooting Cosmos so that the new discoveries can be broadcast to the world.

 

What do you guys think? Do you feel advancements in every field of science are being alerted to the public like they should? Or should they be broadcast better?

 

Discuss Please

Edited March 19, 2014 by Coldknock

[hypervalent_iodine]

I would say firstly that the media does a very good job of overselling many "discoveries". This is especially true for the life sciences and perhaps physics, though I can't claim enough knowledge to pick up on errors present in such media reports.

 

Scientific outreach is a pretty tricky business and it takes something fairly big to really grab public attention (e.g. X found to cure cancer, evidence for the Big Bang discovered, God Particle discovered, etc.). Unfortunately, discoveries in science occur over a long time and in a mostly incremental fashion. Your average lay-person seems to be very rarely interested in minor or even major advancement unless they have some sort of tangible outcome that they can in some way relate to or at the very least understand; I would think that even most scientists are not particularly interested in the small developments that make up the bigger picture(s) outside of their own fields of expertise.

 

I would agree that, 'the discoveries that the scientific community is making aren't being advertised as well as they should be,' though perhaps not for the same reasons. I think that many discoveries are prematurely sold, over-sold and / or badly sold by the media to the point where they totally miss the crux of the discovery they are reporting on or misintepret it entirely. I'm not sure that more of the same really helps matters, but I would definitely agree that the public at large would benefit from adopting a culture that is more literate and more nurturing towards science and scientific progress.

[swansont]

I agree - the modern practice of just repeating a press release and not adding context is a poor way of disseminating discovery. Little attention is paid to whether the study is preliminary or involves a small sample and the reporting oversells the result, or they go for false balance, so the public gets a tennis match of discovery and refutation, ultimately leading them to believe that science doesn't know what it's doing.

 

It doesn't help that the divide between a scientifically illiterate public and the frontier of science gets bigger all the time.

[Essay]

Hello fellow science forums members (I'm new, so this is my first post)! I have a project for school, English class, that requires me to state publicly something that I feel is being neglected or is destroying or traditional values or abilities (ex. cellphones for the current generation, are they taking away from social abilities?). Mine has to do with science which is why I came here. I'm 18 by the way, just so you all get a picture of where I'm coming from.

 

The topic I would like to discuss with you guys (if this is the wrong forum then please move this to the right section) is: Are the modern discoveries in science or advancements being 'pushed under the bush'? Are people not seeing what we have accomplished due to modern form of news?

 

Now for my opinion: I feel that the discoveries that the scientific community is making aren't being advertised as well as they should be. Maybe if they were there would be more funding for science programs than military (my idea of a perfect world). But, I follow /science /sci you know, all the reputable science forums and I feel when I'm talking to people that they just don't seem to know even the basic information they should on discoveries. Most people I talk to they are 10-15 years behind on news, which is astounding to me. Others see my fear as well; Seth MacFarlene for example, rebooting Cosmos so that the new discoveries can be broadcast to the world.

 

What do you guys think? Do you feel advancements in every field of science are being alerted to the public like they should? Or should they be broadcast better?

 

Discuss Please

 

...hey! Hope you don't mind the two free edits (just to encourage you to justifiably impress people further ...or words to that effect), for word use (then/than) and for punctuation (the semi-colon), in the enlarged font. I had thought I saw Seth's name, in the credits for Cosmos, and now I'm surprised (ashamedly so) to discover it is the same Seth. Good for Seth MacFarlane! :thumbsup:

 

And thanks for caring yourself! I have blogged about the “public perception of science” (a phrase you might search) and it’s hard to know what to say about the importance of scientific literacy ...especially for good citizenship. That is to say, being a good citizen should entail some (of at least a certain minimal set of) responsibilities, such as the most basic scientific literacy. That should include the notion that science is a tool (or is a process, with proper methods of use) rather than an ideology, and that science has authority based on historical and continuing and increasingly repeatable utility, as well as predictability and yadayadayada successes. Well, I don’t want to write a debatable thesis paper here.

 

 

...but please see comments below. Thanks again!

 

 

I would say firstly that the media does a very good job of overselling many "discoveries". This is especially true for the life sciences and perhaps physics, though I can't claim enough knowledge to pick up on errors present in such media reports.

 

Scientific outreach is a pretty tricky business and it takes something fairly big to really grab public attention (e.g. X found to cure cancer, evidence for the Big Bang discovered, God Particle discovered, etc.). Unfortunately, discoveries in science occur over a long time and in a mostly incremental fashion. Your average lay-person seems to be very rarely interested in minor or even major advancement unless they have some sort of tangible outcome that they can in some way relate to or at the very least understand; I would think that even most scientists are not particularly interested in the small developments that make up the bigger picture(s) outside of their own fields of expertise.

 

I would agree that, 'the discoveries that the scientific community is making aren't being advertised as well as they should be,' though perhaps not for the same reasons. I think that many discoveries are prematurely sold, over-sold and / or badly sold by the media to the point where they totally miss the crux of the discovery they are reporting on or misintepret it entirely. I'm not sure that more of the same really helps matters, but I would definitely agree that the public at large would benefit from adopting a culture that is more literate and more nurturing towards science and scientific progress.

...off the top of my head, I notice the media will both over-hype and under-sell. They are doing their job, trying to drive up ratings, so....

 

So it is hard not to hype some "new" tidbit or soundbite that gets extracted from the current research. Hey, it is the "current research," so it must be the 'cutting edge' of science; and that should boost ratings! But that is not good (or real) science.

 

The "well-vetted" science is what gets used as a tool, not the "cutting edge" of science ...regardless of how counter-intuitive that metaphor might be.

 

And the well-vetted stuff isn't sexy enough, or it's not new enough, to rate the ratings. Over the past few years I've been trying to publicize several "paradigm shifts" from within certain scientific disciplines, that have occurred within just the past decade (or 15 years now); but until those filter out into the teaching literature, not many people (unless it pertains to their specific interests) understand or care to notice. There seems to be a 5 to 20 year lag, at least for most disciplines, for the new stuff to become mainstream.

 

"Specific interests" are another problem. Even within the sciences, most scientists are so specialized that they cannot appreciate the many parallels between disciplines or the connections between various disciplines. Integrative perspectives are becoming more appreciated, but that doesn't help much with the public perception of science, until that integrative perspective also becomes taught as a basic tool.

 

But I just heard a point worth quoting!

===

 

I liked Neil deGrasse Tyson's reply, when Stephen Colbert asked him what Carl Sagan would have been most surprised by ...since his passing in 1996 ...about science or ..about what most "has changed in our knowledge of the universe." Of Carl Sagan....

 

Neil deGrasse Tyson said,

 

"I think what would surprise him the most is that

we still have to argue that science is something important in society."

 

"That's what would surprise him the most ...for starters!" -Neil deGrasse Tyson

 

~

 

p.s. "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light,

but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." - Max Planck

 

Edited March 19, 2014 by Essay

[davidivad]

just for sake i am going to be the critic here.

 

i scour the internet every day looking at the latest news in science only to find that science has a pace. i often get discouraged because after the first few sites there is nothing new. the only thing left to do is hit the research publications. i then run into the problem that these papers are highly theoretical and often clash. which one is correct? the fact is that part of the scientific community's job is to verify or take these ideas and projects into consideration so that they can decide what to do with them.

 

to just throw the latest stuff out there at the public is irresponsible and misleading.

 

it also hampers the credibility of the scientific community as a whole.

 

we have all the time in the world so let our investments do thier job correctly.

[Coldknock]

Thank you all for replying, was not expecting to get any replies on this. Really enjoyed reading your thoughts on it, though at this moment I do not have much time to respond to all of you.

...hey! Hope you don't mind the two free edits (just to encourage you to justifiably impress people further ...or words to that effect), for word use (then/than) and for punctuation (the semi-colon), in the enlarged font. I had thought I saw Seth's name, in the credits for Cosmos, and now I'm surprised (ashamedly so) to discover it is the same Seth. Good for Seth MacFarlane! :thumbsup:

 

And thanks for caring yourself! I have blogged about the “public perception of science” (a phrase you might search) and it’s hard to know what to say about the importance of scientific literacy ...especially for good citizenship. That is to say, being a good citizen should entail some (of at least a certain minimal set of) responsibilities, such as the most basic scientific literacy. That should include the notion that science is a tool (or is a process, with proper methods of use) rather than an ideology, and that science has authority based on historical and continuing and increasingly repeatable utility, as well as predictability and yadayadayada successes. Well, I don’t want to write a debatable thesis paper here.

 

 

...but please see comments below. Thanks again!

 

 

...off the top of my head, I notice the media will both over-hype and under-sell. They are doing their job, trying to drive up ratings, so....

 

So it is hard not to hype some "new" tidbit or soundbite that gets extracted from the current research. Hey, it is the "current research," so it must be the 'cutting edge' of science; and that should boost ratings! But that is not good (or real) science.

 

The "well-vetted" science is what gets used as a tool, not the "cutting edge" of science ...regardless of how counter-intuitive that metaphor might be.

 

And the well-vetted stuff isn't sexy enough, or it's not new enough, to rate the ratings. Over the past few years I've been trying to publicize several "paradigm shifts" from within certain scientific disciplines, that have occurred within just the past decade (or 15 years now); but until those filter out into the teaching literature, not many people (unless it pertains to their specific interests) understand or care to notice. There seems to be a 5 to 20 year lag, at least for most disciplines, for the new stuff to become mainstream.

 

"Specific interests" are another problem. Even within the sciences, most scientists are so specialized that they cannot appreciate the many parallels between disciplines or the connections between various disciplines. Integrative perspectives are becoming more appreciated, but that doesn't help much with the public perception of science, until that integrative perspective also becomes taught as a basic tool.

 

But I just heard a point worth quoting!

===

 

I liked Neil deGrasse Tyson's reply, when Stephen Colbert asked him what Carl Sagan would have been most surprised by ...since his passing in 1996 ...about science or ..about what most "has changed in our knowledge of the universe." Of Carl Sagan....

 

Neil deGrasse Tyson said,

 

"I think what would surprise him the most is that

we still have to argue that science is something important in society."

"That's what would surprise him the most ...for starters!" -Neil deGrasse Tyson

 

~

 

p.s. "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light,

but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." - Max Planck

Ahaha, so are the next edits will it cost me money? Because I'm sure you will find some in this post. I really liked that quote from Tyson at the end. "We still argue that science is something important in society". I was having trouble putting my thoughts into words and that quote has shown me the light. That is exactly what I'm talking about. I feel science is something that is NOT important to society. People find snooki (was recently on an episode of supernatural, by far the worst actor I have seen in my entire life) more important to be updated on then anything scientific related. I want science to be something important to people. But I do also feel, in regards to hypervalent, that it is hard for science to be updated because media dumbs it down to the point where the information given is no where near the actual information obtained.

 

just for sake i am going to be the critic here.

 

i scour the internet every day looking at the latest news in science only to find that science has a pace. i often get discouraged because after the first few sites there is nothing new. the only thing left to do is hit the research publications. i then run into the problem that these papers are highly theoretical and often clash. which one is correct? the fact is that part of the scientific community's job is to verify or take these ideas and projects into consideration so that they can decide what to do with them.

 

to just throw the latest stuff out there at the public is irresponsible and misleading.

 

it also hampers the credibility of the scientific community as a whole.

 

we have all the time in the world so let our investments do thier job correctly.

Ha, thank you for being a critic. Critics give insight to things you have yet to ponder. I feel you on not finding updates daily but, again referring to hypervalent, it takes a while to do research and find new information or time to build that new model of a scientific machine. I also agree with just throwing the information out there is irresponsible and misleading, the credibility does falter and dwindle. But that's the problem, people don't actively search for the news in science. why? Because they are being fed this muck called reality TV (some shows are good, don't get me wrong). They make that their perception of the world and totally ignore science, they are ignorant to it. I want there to be a news channel, one run and sponsored by scientists that will give the news on science without having to withdraw information for the greater masses. One that is for the people who enjoy science and will actively follow that said channel.

[swansont]

just for sake i am going to be the critic here.

 

i scour the internet every day looking at the latest news in science only to find that science has a pace. i often get discouraged because after the first few sites there is nothing new. the only thing left to do is hit the research publications. i then run into the problem that these papers are highly theoretical and often clash. which one is correct? the fact is that part of the scientific community's job is to verify or take these ideas and projects into consideration so that they can decide what to do with them.

 

to just throw the latest stuff out there at the public is irresponsible and misleading.

 

it also hampers the credibility of the scientific community as a whole.

 

we have all the time in the world so let our investments do thier job correctly.

 

It is part of the scientific community's job to verify results, and they do that. But they have little or no control over what the popular press reports, or if the press are not patient enough to wait for confirmation. I agree with Essay above — the well-vetted science is not what whets the appetite of the journalists.

 

It would be great of scientists took a more active role in communicating, but this isn't a behavior that's traditionally been supported by academia, and it's a new skill set that has to be developed. Doing so takes time away from research, and research is where the emphasis has been placed.

[davidivad]

much agreed

[imatfaal]

Coldknock - I think the above posts provide a lot of good stuff and not much more can be usefully added. A few points - "pushed under a bush"? This phrase means nothing to me - I can guess what it means but it really isn't common parlance in the UK, maybe more so in your hometown. I was always taught never to use phrase like this unless you were certain they were pretty universal and that the usage enhanced the meaning. Now "hidden under a bushel" has biblical roots and more people may have experience with it - but still it is not great form. Why is the huge progress made through Scientific research largely unrecognized?

 

A common retort on the forum to those who decry scientific progress is that they are typing on a computer connected to the worldwideweb and in discussion with hundreds of similar others around the world - what bit of that amazing but now commonplace ability would be possible without massive scientific and technological research. In your parents and teachers (and my) lifetime we have gone from a situation in which transatlantic telephone calls had to be booked in advance - to one where I can conference call New York, Athens, and Bahamas from my mobile whilst at lunch. In my first job I learned how to send telex messages which were charged per character - now I type endless garbage on sf.net for free!

 

What I am getting at is that familiarity breeds contempt - we have become so accustomed to the benefits of scientific progress that we forget how amazing it is.