The Public Understanding of Science and the Misunderstanding of Its Affects

Joel Achenbach, the author of the article, “Why Do Reasonable People Doubt Science?” starts of by saying that in today's era the people often disagree with scientific reasoning. The world we live in today is so full of problems it's hard to tell what is real anymore. The decision is left to the individual to decide what to believe is true or false, and then how there going to put their beliefs into action. Achenbach later explains in his article that the scientific method pushes back all the opinions and unfolds the real truth.

Sometimes careless science publishing can weaken the public’s confidence in science and the government. The Media is enormously powerful and leading and will influence people’s opinions on everything. There are plenty of stories in the media that will change the public’s perception of science or even make them see a new perception. Sometimes these stories are just written to scare the public into believing a certain thing just so they can sell their stories.

It is important to appreciate the current nature and status of the world because there are individuals who laid the appropriate foundation for it. As Michael Specter’s TED Talk on The Danger of Science Denial, he outlined the challenges that might emanate from science denial. There are reason that ought to be checked critically since they affect the current and future generation and these include health, wealth, mobility, opportunity and declining rates of diseases. It is critically clear that Specter performs a very relevant and excellent job to the desired audience by discussing emphatically on important issues that affect the current world. He poses a challenge to the audience to basically look at the world at its normality despite looking at it from skepticism side of it. The skepticism tend to affect the smart decision technique in the modern society as it relates to The Danger of Science Denial. He logically asks the Americans and international TED talk fans to analyze effectively the desired big picture besides both logical and ethical picture. He asked the audience to emphatically compare the pictures broadly and identify the worst picture. This could assist the audience to come up with the right decision regarding their perception of current world to the future generation.

Within the article titled “The Mistrust of Science” by Atul Gawande, the article is a written document of an address at the California Institute of Technology and describes the connection of science to every single human on Earth. This is done because the presenter defines science as “a systematic way of thinking” since science allows humans to contemplate beyond the information being given to them at any time, such as the questions may follow of how, when, where, why, and how? The presenter states the opinion that, no matter what major you are declared as or the type of occupation you hold, science is embedded into the way you are living, despite you not having any knowledge of certain science topics.

The scientific method continues to be misrepresented in public schools all over the world. Students are being taught that there is a beginning and an end to the scientific method, and that everything in between is protocol and must be followed chronologically. “Ask a question, do some research, come up with a hypothesis, conduct an experiment, understand your data, make your conclusion!” a grade six science teacher will tell their students. “It’ll be on your quiz!”. However, what those students are not being taught is that the scientific method has never been, and will never be a linear process. Scientists constantly revisit different steps of the process in order to better understand the subject matter; sometimes it can take many years to

Through the analysis of the major televised debate, held February this year, between the popular science communicator, Bill Nye, and the US-based Australian creationist, Ken Ham. It has come to light that through careful analysis and research it is my belief that scientists should not be involved within any debates “scientific” or otherwise regarding topics pertaining to creationism or any other religious perspective. The inappropriate use of the loose definitions of science and religion lead to the intertwining of the two subjects that are extremely different in methodology, leaving the audience up for misinterpretation. While the debate did bring about the topic to the forefront of the public, which in itself was a positive, I do not believe that the post debate result was a win for science. Bill Nye’s derogatory demeanour represented post debate towards Ken Ham was in turn a representation of institutional science. Leading to which the validity of the debate and post debate could be brought into question.

The world is not a cultivating place for scientists. Victor Frankenstein in Frankenstein; or a Modern Prometheus and Will Rodman, from Rise of the Planet of the Apes, are met with constant opposition to their studies and goals. The current state of scientific research is embodied in both these works. Both protagonists are restricted creatively and shunned by their peers. And if a scientist does not succeed or make a new and benefiting discovery, they are shunned even more and judged by society.

Whereas ideas and beliefs are generally stunted in their growth and often tend to be passed down from one generation to the next. Intellectuals should never become shackled by their beliefs to the point it stands in the way of their quest for academic wisdom. Being well educated, one should always explore learning beyond the boundaries of their individual views. One of the more dogmatic topics of debate has always been religion versus science. Galileo, “the father of modern science”, was ultimately condemned for heresy by the Roman Inquisition for his lust for knowledge. Fortunately, times have changed and science and religion have learned to co-exist. Nonetheless, there is still a sense of social stigma associated with some of the topics that teeter on religion, such as Darwin’s Theory of Evolution or the Big Bang Theory. Some of the greatest contributions to our world throughout the ages have been fueled by free thinkers that dared to venture outside the scope of their

What is Science? When it comes to the word ‘science’ most of the people have some kind of knowledge about science or when they think of it there is some kind of image related to it, a theory, scientific words or scientific research (Beyond Conservation, n.d.). Many different sorts of ideas float into an individual’s mind. Every individual has a different perception about science and how he/she perceives it. It illustrates that each person can identify science in some form. It indicates that the ‘science’ plays a vital role in our everyday lives (Lederman & Tobin, 2002). It seems that everyone can identify science but cannot differentiate it correctly from pseudo-science and non-science (Park, 1986). This essay will address the difference between science, non-science and pseudo-science. Then it will discuss possible responses to the question that what should we do when there is a clash between scientific explanation and non-scientific explanation. Then it will present a brief examination about the correct non-scientific explanation.

The economy states that a good level of education is essential in todays’ world and science based subjects will make children more conscious of their surroundings and the wider world. The global environment has been subject to much discussion amongst leading political figures, and Summits, such as the UN Climate Change Conferences where tacking such things as global warming are discussed and scientific evidence produced with the aim of saving the planet from itself. The reporting of this in the mainstream media may encourage children to be more aware of their environment, how these changes affect then and the impact of these changes on a global scale. This may increase their broader understanding of the need for a scientific education and

Although radioactivity was at first just at the surface, later studies showed that these radioactive elements were absorbed by the soil and that their effects would be long-lasting (Gould 69). Within a short amount of time animals consumed these radioactive plants, and these particles worked their way up the food chain. Soon, not only berry crops in Austria had to be discarded, but also milk supplies in Italy (68, 69). More than twenty European nations received enough fallout to require food restrictions, and 100 million people altered their diets in the ensuing months (Flavin 6, 16). Adding to this paranoia was the fact that even the experts had little knowledge of what was happening. Most nations were unprepared, and many implemented differing safety guidelines for food (15). Some governments outright lied to quell the public’s fear (Gould 70). In the end, millions of people were exposed to unhealthy doses of radiation, and estimates for future deaths from cancer caused by this exposure range as high as one million, with half being fatal (Flavin 18). These are clearly examples of the externalities of a nuclear disaster.

Other phrases throughout the first four pages use words like "nightmare", "destroy", "haunt", and "anguish" to attract readers to how seriously society takes awareness of science. These phrases get readers to feel the urgency of the views against science in society. The dark phrasing successfully shows that society has taken a responsible view against incorrect scientific application.

As people, we come with earlier knowledge and understandings on subjects and topics of study, “Science” being one of them. We make presumptions, based on either reasonable evidence or that our thoughts and ideas are known as true by others. Through this we have come to understand and define science as its aims, leaving its definition, whether consciously or unconsciously, unchallenged. We have taken advantage of the label that we have set for science, as well as its goals, and failed to look at them further.

This book, ‘What is this Thing called Science?’ is assigned to write a review on the third edition which was published in the year 1999, 1st February by University of Queensland Press. This book is reflects up to date with day today’s contemporary trend and gives a basic introduction on the philosophy of science. This is a very comprehensive book explaining the nature of science and its historical development. It is very informative and a necessary reference when attempting to understand the how science has evolved throughout time. The book is also well organized, and each chapter is concluded with suggestions for further reading. This book is actually a review on the philosophy of science.

Disagreement may aid the pursuit of knowledge in the natural and human sciences because disagreement leads to new discoveries. Disagreement is about gathering reliable knowledge as well as using this newfound knowledge, and occurs when a group fails to reach a consensus over the logic of an argument. Knowledge is composed of facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education. Two areas of knowledge that are impacted by disagreement are human science and natural science. Human science is the study of human behavior and how humans gather information. Natural science is a branch of science that deals with the physical world. In order for a disagreement to occur, one must be familiar with the subject and have his or her own prediction that is different from the norm. Therefore, to advance knowledge in the areas of human and natural science, people must disagree. The roles of logic, reason, and emotion will be investigated to see how they are used to help gain new knowledge in both human and natural science.