The Myth of Scientific Literacy [Hardcover]

Morris Shamos (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: May 1, 1995

Arguing that universal scientific literacy is a futile goal, a physicist advocates a practical science education curriculum emphasizing appreciation of science as an on-going cultural enterprise; awareness of technology's impact on health, safety, and environment; and sensible use of experts. UP.

Editorial Reviews

From Booklist

The well-intentioned goal of scientific literacy (the universal understanding of basic scientific principles) is unattainable, according to Shamos, as we have proved throughout this century. Shamos looks at adult and student scientific literacy, pointing out that even students who perform well gradewise in science subjects show little retention as adults (if they are not directly involved in a scientific career). The author calls for, and defines, a transformation of our educational curriculum at the elementary and high-school levels in order to enhance science appreciation through the study of related technology and practical issues. His contention makes a good deal of sense, is logically and thoughtfully presented, and could revolutionize educational programs (if anyone will heed him). Denise Perry Donavin

From the Inside Flap

Why do we make every schoolchild and college student take science? Does every American really need to be scientifically literate? In this provocative book, Morris Shamos, a physicist and science educator of very broad experience, argues that universal scientific literacy is a futile goal, and urges a critical review of the purpose of general education in science. Shamos argues that a meaningful scientific literacy cannot be achieved in the first place, and the attempt is a misuse of human resources on a grand scale. He is skeptical about forecasts of "critical shortfalls in scientific manpower" and about the motives behind crash programs to get more young people into the science pipeline. Finally, he is convinced that, as presently taught, the vast majority of students come out of science classes with neither an intellectual grasp nor a pragmatic appreciation of science. Shamos advocates instead a practical science education curriculum that grants the impossibility of every American's learning enough science to make independent judgments about major scientific issues. Rather than giving children the heavy diet of scientific terms and facts they now get, he would emphasize: an appreciation of science as an ongoing cultural enterprise; an awareness of technology's impact on one's personal health, safety, and surroundings; and the need to use experts wisely in resolving science/society issues.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 288 pages
• Publisher: Rutgers University Press (May 1, 1995)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0813521963
• ISBN-13: 978-0813521961
• Product Dimensions: 9.3 x 6.3 x 1.1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.4 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.5 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (6 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,062,651 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

4 of 4 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars A honest, good and important book, March 10, 2004

By 

Martin Bonfil "mbonfil" (Mexico City) - See all my reviews

This review is from: The Myth of Scientific Literacy (Hardcover)

Contrary to what one might think, this book does NOT make the argument for "leaving it up to the experts". Quite the contrary, it ecourages science educators to stop teaching science "because" people "need" to know basic scientific principles (it may be difficult to accept this, but Shamos gives loads of evidence of why it is an empty goal). The book does by no means discourage the teaching of science. It argues for a CHANGE in the way science is thaught, and in the reasons behind the way science is thaught. Its main argument is that science must be taught because of its aesthetic value, because that's the most realistic way to get good, effective and, above all, honest, science teaching.

2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars An important book for educators, October 2, 2006

By 

L. Buehler (San Diego, California) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: The Myth of Scientific Literacy (Hardcover)

Although everybody complains about the decline of public education and lack of science literacy, it is worthwhile to actually ask, if the reasons for complaining are valid. Science literacy and popularizing of science are not the same thing. Shamos claims that true scientific literacy as proposed by John Dewey's 'scientific habits of the mind' cannot be realized simply by reading and writing. If science literacy, however, means a simple awareness of science as part of our culture, prospects of achieving science literacy are much better. Shamos clarifies the purpose of science education, examines the history and meaning of scientific literacy and explains the reason for failure of achieving the goal, if the goal is for every citizen to be literate in science. His book includes a well written chapter about nature of science (chapter 3).

He explains why the practice of science does and has not carried over very well into science education. Science literacy requires that we understand the following: how to obtain information, how to classify facts, and how to draw logical conclusions. The latter is where the real problem resides. We can always come to a 'right' conclusion based on 'reasoning'. The conclusions, although logically derived, are wrong if the premises are wrong or the observations inaccurate. If we lack the method, i.e., the means to distinguish correct from incorrect premises, reasoning does not help at all. Everything can be rationalized, but is it scientific? Science literacy, for example, means to be able to explain why Darwin's words (e.g. the theory of evolution) for a biologist have a different quality and logical structure than the Word of God (e.g. the Bible, the Koran, the Thora) for a believer.

The distinction of method touches at the core of the problem -- science literacy does not mean that everybody becomes a scientist, but to know what science is about and what it is not about.

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars Simplistic and patronizing - but probably sounds good if you believe his straw man., May 4, 2010

By 

Brandy "porcupine" - See all my reviews

This review is from: The Myth of Scientific Literacy (Hardcover)

I will admit that I have not read every word of this book yet. I have read several chapters, spread throughout (about every other chapter total), and I don't feel the need to waste my time on the rest.

Basically, what Shamos does is makes up his own definition of "true scientific literacy," and then after admitting that it is far more demanding and stringent than most definitions in the literature, proceeds as though it is the definition that most research is based on. In other words, most of the book is based on a complete straw man.

He then rants about what an impossible goal his "true scientific literacy" is, and instead suggests the idea of "science appreciation" - which, under some definitions, could look very much like other researchers' definitions of scientific literacy. But not under Shamos's. In his world, people should only be taught that science is good, we should be thankful to scientists, and we should continue to fund science. Patronizing enough for you?

Of course, the reality is that most working definitions of scientific literacy are far more realistic goals than the extreme version presented here. Nor is Shamos's simplistic "science appreciation" the best we can hope for in educating the general public, by a long shot.

In the end, it is almost comical that this physicist promotes the "Science Court" idea proposed by - you guessed it, another physicist. It is the height of ivory tower conceit, and I am saying this as a resident of the tower myself. It almost reads as a parody of academia, explaining how the poor befuddled public can't possibly be trusted to make their own decisions if Science is involved.