Customer Reviews

The Myth of Scientific Literacy

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

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.

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.

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.

It is an idea that has been prevalent for nearly 100 years: in order to consider an education successful, students need to have a basic "scientific literacy." Society depends on the average citizen being able to understand the main ideas in physics, chemistry, biology, and earth science. If we do not give all students scientific literacy of this kind, not only will they be unable to participate in scientifically-laden public debates, but America might lose its place as the industrial leader in science.

These ideas are all subjected to a careful and exacting microscope in Morris Shamos's book, Scientific Literacy, and each of them is found wanting. Does the average citizen need to understand science to participate in public discussions of science? That would be like saying that to participate in a debate about the behavior of the current Senate, one must have detailed knowledge of the Constitution's eligibility requirements of the senate. Knowing the ins and outs of climatology will not help the average citizen talk about global warming because (a) such knowledge is more detailed than the average citizen has time/patience and (b) most argument about global warming has more to do with moral/political stances than scientific ones (the latter being done by experts, not the general public).

But will foregoing hope of universal scientific literacy mean that less students will go into science? Perhaps, but that is primarily due to market factors, rather than educational ones. Students', and curriculum designers,' decisions are usually made based on "where the money is." If the money is not in science - and it is not! - students will not go there, but go into business, law, etc. It would be strange, argues the author, to attempt 'steering' students towards a profession that is not lucrative, and once it is lucrative, students would likely go there on their own accord.

The main thrust of this book, though, is on the first point. The idea that students must have an understanding of science in order to be participating citizens is - while not wholly a myth - an overblown mantra. Most debates hinging on the details of science are conducted by those who have the training to understand the minutiae (just like debates involving the details of history are conducted by historians, not the lay public). At those times where the general public DOES talk science, it is generally in the context of discussing the MORAL or SOCIAL implications of a scientific action, rather than the details of the scientific act itself.

Ironically, this can be seen by the obviously irked reviewer below, who takes the authors suggestion that we might "leave the science to the experts" is exactly the mentality that led to society's general support for/indifference to eugenics. Of course, this PROVES the author's point: the issue of whether to practice eugenics is not an issue that demands a detailed understanding of genetidcs or evolution, but is a MORAL issue. Contra the reviewer's assertion, and proving the author's point, the general public does not need to be scientifically literate to discuss whether a stem cell is a human life, what to do about nuclear weapons, or whether genetic engineering is morally permissible.

Is the author saying that we should not teach science and just leave it all to the experts? No. He is saying (a) that we should really ask ourselves what small bit of science is necessary for students to understand vs. nice for them to understand (students understanding what evolution is as opposed to how RNA creates amino acids). Also, the author is a strong proponent of suggesting that we teach science APPRECIATION rather than science LITERACY (teaching how science does what it does more than a survey of its results).

My biggest reservation about the author's thesis is that everything said about the futility and non-necessity of getting kids to retain science can be equally said about history, algebra, and world literature. Let's think particularly about history: does a student need to understand the details of the civil war to be a responsible citizen? (No.) Does she need to know the details of the American founding to discuss whether church and state should be seperate? (No.) So, all the same things apply to history (and algebra, and world history) that the author applies to science. But would the author advocate that we also water down our teaching of history and algebra in a similar way?

While I agree that the author makes a persuasive case that much of what we teach in science is irrelevant to students civic functioning, I am not sure that this is the only reason we teach science (or history or algebra). We teach them partially to equip students with knowledge they may use after high school. But we ALSO teach them because when students learn these things, they are learning how to learn in various disciplines, experiencing the 'basics' of different fields so that they might figure out where their interests lie, and appreciate the vastness of each discipline by exploring it in some detail. (Think about why we teach history: we teach American history so that students might appreciate that there is more to America than "right now." This is the same reason why we teach evolution and genetics.)

So, I deduct one star because I think the author takes a myopic view of education when he suggests that scientific literacy is irrelevant because of its lack of pragmatic civic value (as if this is the only reason to teach a subject). I take another star off because the author is needlessly repetitive. His point that the average citizen need not be scientifically literate in a traditional sense is well taken, but the author repeats this over and over and over, trying to convince us each time with the same arguments.

I don't generally write such lengthy reviews, but felt the need to here. This book lends itself to the type of simple misunderstandings seen in the review directly below mine. The author is not an elitist and his pessimism towards the idea of scientific literacy does have some compelling, if not complete, reasons. The fact that I produced such a long review should be testament to how thought provoking the book is. Whether you agree or disagree with the author's premise, books that challenge 'sacred cows' need to be written, and this one is very much worth reading.

The two reviewers who gave this book a one star review should read the two other five star reviews with an open mind and then try to find some common ground that might actually help to improve the science literacy in this country. But that would require some self discipline. It's a lot easier and definitely more fun just to the fan the flames of the science education wars and not make any progress.

The reason no other person has written a review on this book is because probably few other people have read it. I have been reading it in conjunction with my work on eugenics and the impact on the deaf and hard-of-hearing in the United States. What does science literacy have to do with eugenics? The whole reason eugenics was possible in the United States from 1880 to the 1930s and beyond, is because people left 'science' up to the 'experts'...those who had science training, physicians, social workers, and some very questionable 'scientists'. These experts used science colored by prejudice to place marriage restrictions, sterilize those they considered less worthy of bearing children, and also to practice euthanasia and experimentation on the disabled in the U.S. Shamos makes the ridiculous argument that only those interested in science as a career should have exposure to scientific concepts, the rest of us 'illiterates' (whether female, minorities, or different abilities) should allow the 'experts' to make informed decisions about science and its impact on our lives. Shamos doesn't even bother to do the educational research to back up his general statements, and a good many of his statements border on offensive. This is a man who had the ear of science associations such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

What is so frightening is this book is recent, and he makes several of the same statements the eugenicists used to use about society and people doing what is best for society, and not for individuals. According to Shamos, most Americans cannot possibly fathom science concepts and so we should not waste our time teaching science in elementary and secondary schools. Rather than doing research into the best ways to teach science so all can understand, even if it means using multiple methods, Shamos excuses science educators and scientists from even trying since the masses are too stupid to be able to overcome generalizations or what he calls "common sense." Rarely have I read a book which made me so angry. There is no excuse for laziness on the part of educators in teaching science for a lifetime, and there is no excuse for prejudices that dictate what individuals can and cannot do. Science pervades our lives, and in order to give informed consent to any science practice, all must have the education to question, whether medical, environmental, or any other science that impacts our lives. The right to restrict educational opportunity has no place anywhere, and it certainly has no place in the United States. Karen L. Sadler, A deaf scientist and educator, Science Education, University of Pittsburgh