Reply to comment

Henri:

I most certainly agree with your statement:

And it is my feeling that if science as a whole, i.e. not only the "important cognitive skills", but also the context, i.e. how it works when you are practicing science, if these things were more widely known, then it would be much harder for the extremists to obtain the undeserved credence they seem to enjoy nowadays.

The contextual and historic characteristics of science could be the most important aspects of science to be taught to non-scientists. (This is not to say that scientists shouldn't be taught this. They should. It's just that I expect that these aspects may be even more important for those not "steeped" in the discipline of science.)

Science must, of necessity (in order to be science), in my opinion, be rigorous in logic and models (whether mathematical or otherwise). (It must also be falsifiable, with nature being the ultimate arbiter/authority.) At the same time, both scientists and non-scientists need to understand that science is not just about what we know, but what we don't know and our continual rechecking (read: New observations/experiments), and healthy self doubt, over what we think we already know.

An overuse of "science as ultimate authority" is, in my opinion, detrimental to science. For one, it goes against the "definition" of science as expressed by Feynman (as "the result of the discovery that it is worthwhile rechecking by new direct experience, and not necessarily trusting the race experience from the past"). For another, insistence that science is such an "ultimate authority" is at least one of the root causes of the disillusionment many non-scientists appear to have experienced with regard to science. (Another is the all too common assertion that science [of one form or another] will "cure all ills" [not just medical ills, but social, environmental, energy/materials related, etc.]. The problem that is seldom acknowledged up front, but confronted after the fact, is that science is done by humans, and humans are not so smart or wise as to be able to account for all potential side effects/consequences.)

So, yes, the public (as well as scientists) need to know more of what science is and what it is not: The extremes need to be "banished". Furthermore, we as scientists, while we like the idea of being considered "authorities" and/or "saviors" (of mankind, say), we should be more humble about our work and profession. For instance, we shouldn't "bristle" at the application of the label "theory" to our models/theories/etc., after all, that's what they are. We must acknowledge the limitations of science, even though it is arguably the best method of pursuing the true nature of the natural world (short of nature herself revealing all to us directly).

David