People have asked if I'm going to demonstrate on Saturday.
It began when the incurious new President of the United States called climate scientists "hoaxsters", made daily verifiably false statements and began to dismantle pieces of the government that support science. He, his administration, his party and millions of followers couldn't handle real evidence. And it isn't just the right - unwillingness to weigh evidence extends across the political spectrum.
The scientific community quickly reacted. An uncentralized and largely apolitical group came together and a march was scheduled for Washington D.C. Additional marches popped up around the country and the movement went worldwide. At last count over four hundred marches will take place around the world - including at least one in Antarctica.
I'm torn.
I'm no stranger to protests and have been arrested in my youth, but I've learned enough to ask what they accomplish. Some, like Earth Day, spoke to the dramatic events of the day - oil washing up on a beach in Santa Barbara, a river catching on fire in Ohio and burning two bridges, and smog that had made Los Angeles the butt of jokes around the world. They resonated with large and diverse segments of the public. The demonstrations and buy-in from the voting public were large enough to frighten a President and Congress into enacting dramatic change in law. Other movements - civil rights, women's rights and the anti-war movement - all brought change. But what about this protest? Is it about society, the scientists or science? That seems to be an open question at this point.
At its core science is skeptical inquiry and reliance on empirical evidence. It is not a collection of facts, but rather a process for uncovering how the world works. It may not perfectly describe what is going on, but it can tell you how certain it is about what it finds. While it is constantly being tested and improved, it has given us a large body of useful knowledge that is more than good enough for much of what we do. Not only that, it has bestowed upon us the ability to illuminate unknowns that had been impossibly hidden. Unknowns that we could investigate and learn even more. New and larger untouched beaches filled with diamonds luck on the horizon. Basic science is the tip of the arrow with practical change sometimes decades off, but the elucidation of known science like global warming is very much in the present.
Reality is that which continues to exist even when you stop believing in it. - Philip K. Dick
Eventually the lies of Trump and his minions will catch up to them, but the cost may be extremely high. I'm not claiming insight into political alternatives - that's not my wheelhouse. But although I will be attending the march in New York City, I have some serious doubts about what will be accomplished.
I worry that scientists are often painted as elitists. Those who know me (I hope) know otherwise and the same is true of nearly every STEM person I know. What I am worried about a tendency that many, including myself, have that may fuel this belief. We don't know how to communicate.
There was a time when I thought I was a good teacher. I believed the way to address scientific illiteracy and innumeracy was education and spent a good deal of time lecturing and writing. I put an emphasis on introductory level courses, but learned while some loved it, most were uninterested. I tried to modify my approach, but it was still education based. It continued to fail. It was like I was trying to get through to a non-English speaker by S P E A K I N G S L O W L Y A N D L O U D L Y.
Social scientists refer to my approach as the deficit model - someone's opinion differs from scientific consensus because they lack scientific knowledge. hmmm... that sounds rather elitist, doesn't it? I can enjoy watching a beach volleyball match, but I'm an awful player. I don't need deep volleyball education, although a bit makes it more enjoyable.
There is strong evidence that increasing scientific literacy can be independent of opinion on a subject that is somehow associated with someone's value system. A conservative may strongly reject global warming even though they've had science and math classes from a good university. Similarly a liberal may reject vaccination or the safety of any GMO. Both groups may wildly miscalculate a variety of issues that science speaks to. And then there's the wisdom of Upton Sinclair: It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.
So what do you do?
I'm not a good storyteller, but I've been spending time with people who are. I've learned you have to gain trust, find common ground and speak to the heart. I've worked on some projects that didn't manage to scale, but I've been learning and will continue trying. And at the same time there are people of all stripes who might enjoy the getting involved in amateur science. Although areas are specialized and rarified, may aren't. There is a lot of Nature out there. You don't have to do anything novel. There is great joy to be had from observing, asking simple questions and then seeing if you can answer them by observing or experimenting. If you're really lucky you're rewarded with a question you hadn't considered. With practice you'll get better.
People say children are natural scientists. It isn't true. They're curious and ask questions, but the rest of the process hasn't developed. Their curiosity needs be be encouraged - eventually the rest can follow. People told my parents I was too curious for my own good. That I'd put my eye out or something. That was a long time ago. I'm way more curious now and am still alive. It isn't a bad thing.
I'm still conflicted about the march. It may even be counter-productive, turning off a segment of the population it needs to win over. But I'll talk with others and - well - that is usually a good thing. Down the road my focus needs to shift a bit towards science literacy to common ground and story telling. I won't drop talking about science and will be writing about learning how to ask Nature questions on your own rather than just reading about it or seeing a show on TV.
Ideas and help are always welcome and thanks to those who have helped me so far. With luck the focus is better now.
Just then they came in sight of thirty or forty windmills that rise from that plain. And no sooner did Don Quixote see them that he said to his squire, "Fortune is guiding our affairs better than we ourselves could have wished. Do you see over yonder, friend Sancho, thirty or forty hulking giants? I intend to do battle with them and slay them. With their spoils we shall begin to be rich for this is a righteous war and the removal of so foul a brood from off the face of the earth is a service God will bless."
"What giants?" asked Sancho Panza.
"Those you see over there," replied his master, "with their long arms. Some of them have arms well nigh two leagues in length."
"Take care, sir," cried Sancho. "Those over there are not giants but windmills. Those things that seem to be their arms are sails which, when they are whirled around by the wind, turn the millstone."
Comments