Matteo Cantiello is wrong. The "public" generally lacks the knowledge of mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, and computer science necessary to read and understand research. Moreover, many members of the public are encumbered by belief systems which make understanding impossible and which lead to unproductive arguments about whether global warming is real or whether evolution exists. What is needed is for there not to be a dichotomy between scientists and non-scientists; everyone should be a scientist.
It sounds like you're arguing that people wouldn't understand new results if they were more open. Most people I know well are educated/intelligent and could understand leading-edge research results within their own field, so I disagree. (And I don't work at a university!)
Even if only a minority of the public understood publicly-available research, having all results open could change the way the world works. It was hard to see how the information-sharing of the internet would change the world, so I can understand how this is hard to see as well.
You also hint that science deserves more wide-spread respect, and that the world be better off if people were better educated and tended to be more scientifically-minded. I agree with that!
I was arguing that we live in a post-literate post-numeracy world where most people have not learned the basics of science. Even people who have scientific or engineering education don't know much about other disciplines. Most modern scientific research does not play well to the public because they do not have the tools and knowledge necessary to understand.
I would like to see science and technology more accessible, but that means the public needs to learn more science and mathematics. And, it means that some members will need to abandon some of their beliefs, which are not supported by evidence.
3 comments
[ 6.4 ms ] story [ 21.8 ms ] threadEven if only a minority of the public understood publicly-available research, having all results open could change the way the world works. It was hard to see how the information-sharing of the internet would change the world, so I can understand how this is hard to see as well.
You also hint that science deserves more wide-spread respect, and that the world be better off if people were better educated and tended to be more scientifically-minded. I agree with that!
I would like to see science and technology more accessible, but that means the public needs to learn more science and mathematics. And, it means that some members will need to abandon some of their beliefs, which are not supported by evidence.