Science, So What?

[Ixion]

Science, So Everything!

This is a new website put up by the United Kingdom government as an attempt to make science more accessible and understandable by the general public. I found it through an article on the BBC webpage:
Science questions baffle parents (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/8195805.stm)

The main page seems to be dedicated to general science awareness in the news. Another page lists common questions that kids ask and gives answers to them that parents can use to inform themselves and their kids.
Main page:Science, So What? (http://sciencesowhat.direct.gov.uk/)
Question page:Kids' Questions (http://sciencesowhat.direct.gov.uk/KidsQuestions.aspx)

They also have a submission page to submit questions for answers as well as some activities families can participate in while incorporating science.

I like the idea. I haven't poked around too much, but I think it is a good way to introduce science in a non-threatening, easy-to-understand way.

[Eyeron]

by the title I thought it was going to be a theist complaining about science being a cult when it's not.

But this is generally a good idea.

[PaulJ]

It's great to see some effort going into science education that actively engages children. (But what does this say about the science education British schools are providing?)

"Sense About Science"* is another site, targeted at adults who may be uncertain or confused by science in today's news.

*As a newbie I'm link-deprived. Just Google it. :)

[Ixion]

Sense about Science (http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/)

Thanks for the heads up, PaulJ, and welcome to the forum!

[Raze]

I wish the world would do more though. I mean an overhauling of the public education system to give students much more exposure to science and math.

That way there would be fewer Jetleg's thinking science isn't based upon observable evidence.

[BobG]

I wish the world would do more though. I mean an overhauling of the public education system to give students much more exposure to science and math.

That way there would be fewer Jetleg's thinking science isn't based upon observable evidence.

It is very important to elect leaders and politicians who believe in science.

The last American administration was a disgrace in this regard! I believe George Bush said "Evolution is only a theory." The funny thing is that the jerk was correct but he had no idea why!

[Just thinking]

I wish the world would do more though. I mean an overhauling of the public education system to give students much more exposure to science and math.

That way there would be fewer Jetleg's thinking science isn't based upon observable evidence.

As a former science and math teacher I have to disagree ... because there are folks (way too many) that simply do not want to learn science or math. PERIOD. They just refuse to drink, if you'll pardon the analogy. Why? Ask 3 students why and you'll get 4 different answers; but it really doesn't matter so much ... there are many that don't want to learn. And they can be found throughout almost all walks of life.

[BobG]

As a former science and math teacher I have to disagree ... because there are folks (way too many) that simply do not want to learn science or math. PERIOD. They just refuse to drink, if you'll pardon the analogy. Why? Ask 3 students why and you'll get 4 different answers; but it really doesn't matter so much ... there are many that don't want to learn. And they can be found throughout almost all walks of life.

That is because this country is phobic about how difficult it is to learn science and math!

As far as getting four different answers from three students, wouldn't all of the answers either boil down to or be predicated upon the statement "Science and math is too difficult"?

[Just thinking]

That is because this country is phobic about how difficult it is to learn science and math!

As far as getting four different answers from three students, wouldn't all of the answers either boil down to or be predicated upon the statement "Science and math is too difficult"?

Unfortunately ... no. Even though that would be a significant barrier to overcome, there are others. I've personally had the experience of having a girl refuse to study the science of evolution because it contradicted her religious beliefs --- turned whatever I said off like a switch. It was wrong and that was that. Also, there's always the "Why do I need to learn this stuff? I'm going to work for my father after high school and make over $300,000 a year like he does ... and he didn't even graduate. He pays his grounds keeper more than you make, and he can't even speak English."

Now ... just how do you counter that? Not the argument, the mindset.

[BobG]

Unfortunately ... no. Even though that would be a significant barrier to overcome, there are others. I've personally had the experience of having a girl refuse to study the science of evolution because it contradicted her religious beliefs --- turned whatever I said off like a switch. It was wrong and that was that. Also, there's always the "Why do I need to learn this stuff? I'm going to work for my father after high school and make over $300,000 a year like he does ... and he didn't even graduate. He pays his grounds keeper more than you make, and he can't even speak English."

Now ... just how do you counter that? Not the argument, the mindset.

I wish that I knew but I don't! That is sad.

By the way, she had a hell of a nerve saying this to you!

[technoextreme]

Unfortunately ... no. Even though that would be a significant barrier to overcome, there are others. I've personally had the experience of having a girl refuse to study the science of evolution because it contradicted her religious beliefs --- turned whatever I said off like a switch.
It was wrong and that was that. Also, there's always the "Why do I need to learn this stuff? I'm going to work for my father after high school and make over $300,000 a year like he does ... and he didn't even graduate. He pays his grounds keeper more than you make, and he can't even speak English."

Now ... just how do you counter that? Not the argument, the mindset.
Mock them incessantly.

[BNRT]

Now ... just how do you counter that? Not the argument, the mindset.

Perhaps tell him to imagine what he could do if he/she had a thorough education and did speak English?

[Just thinking]

Perhaps tell him to imagine what he could do if he/she had a thorough education and did speak English?

But don't you see ... I'm (and others like me) the result of that, making a below modest wage, while they make much more doing a job that requires little formal education. The fault isn't in their logic so much, as it is in the structure of what society values. Trash collectors making more than teachers with 25 years experience. Yes ... it's a horrible job to some, but it has its rewards, that in a few years you get to drive the truck and just sit back and make a decent living. And laugh at those who busted their tails in college, not to mention paid a hefty price for going, and have to take a lot of angst from work. Or, as I said earlier, go into their father's business and make many times that of a teacher's salary --- again, with what they see as much less job stress.

[maddog]

Mock them incessantly.

WIN!

[Def Egge]

Mock them incessantly.

I've never found that to work.

Imagining them - scrub brush in-hand - scouring my toilets does as little to remedy the mindset but it certainly makes me feel better about the situation.

How do I reach these keeds?

[Mark6]

Also, there's always the "Why do I need to learn this stuff? I'm going to work for my father after high school and make over $300,000 a year like he does ... and he didn't even graduate. He pays his grounds keeper more than you make, and he can't even speak English."

Now ... just how do you counter that? Not the argument, the mindset.
Ask him what his father does. Then explain how globalization, information technology, and/or robotics will make whatever father does either obsolete or so unrecognizable, he HAS to study science just to keep up.

[athon]

A significant part of the problem is how science and maths is viewed as a removed discipline that - for the most part - won't be useful or necessary. And indeed, the way it is often taught, 90% of that is true.

To get around it, there are several things that work.

1) Integration - science literacy works amazingly well when it is integrated across the curricula from a young age. For instance, by using science in teaching reading skills, the communication processes that sit at the core of science philosophy become entrenched. For an example here in Australia, see the Primary Connections (http://www.science.org.au/primaryconnections/) program that the Academy of Sciences produces.

2) Accessibility - Science and maths needs to be seen as accessible and easy to relate to, which means those who practice is need to be visible and communicative about what they do. Another Australian program (I suspect there might be one or two similar ones in the US, and I have a vague feeling there is one in the UK - I'd need to check) which reflects this is Scientists in Schools (http://www.scientistsinschools.edu.au/), which is also about to launch a mathematicians equivalent.

3) Relativity - If the curriculum doesn't relate to what the kids do or know, of course they'll switch off. You play the 'take your medicine' game all you want, trying to jam it down their throats, but it won't take. Unitising early curricula is a simple fix for this, and more schools are indeed doing that. But it's often tough getting past the traditionalist mentality where a head of department's personal view on important content takes precedence over everything else.

I've seen the differences between schools where science works brilliantly, and where it fails. More often than not, it does come down to one, simple factor - an enthusiastic science department. However, the above three factors can play vital roles as well.

Athon