Science Education for Everyone: Why and What? over at physics and physicists. A commentary on an article at redOrbit.
The original article makes several good points but, unfortunately, also build a strawman or two.
A common response to the notion of teaching all of the sciences is the claim that the standard type of courses really teach something called the “scientific method,” and that this will magically give students the background they need to read the newspaper on the day they graduate. This argument is so silly that I scarcely know where to start commenting on it. If it were applied to any other field, its vacuity would be obvious; after all, no one argues that someone who wants to learn Chinese should study French, acquire the “language method,” and learn Chinese on his or her own. If we expect our students to understand the basic principles of ecology or geology, we should teach those principles explicitly. To do otherwise is to indulge in what I call the “teach them relativity and they’ll work out molecular biology on the way home” school of thought. Incidentally, the notion that there is a magical “scientific method” explains a bizarre feature of the modern scientific community. I am referring to the fact that, outside of their fields of specialty, professional scientists, as a group, are probably the most scientifically illiterate group in the United States. The reason is simpie: scientists are never required to study science outside of their own fields. The last time a working physicist saw a biology textbook, for example, was probably in high school. If you do not believe me, ask one of your scientific colleagues how he or she deals with public issues outside of his or her field. Chances are you’ll get an answer like “I call a friend,” a technique I refer to as having recourse to the Golden Rolodex.
Zapperz critiques this, and I’ll add my two cents. That there is no single “scientific method” is one of the things that we should be teaching. One does not learn French to learn Chinese, but one can develop an appreciation of language by recognizing that there are differences (and similarities) in the structures of different languages. Likewise, a teacher can point out the was that the scientific method manifests itself in their particular discipline when teaching a physics/biology/geology for poets class. Expose them to the fact that “theory” does not mean “guess.” Make them recognize the interconnectedness of science so that when someone makes a statement that is too far advanced for their level of expertise, they understand that it’s not a scientist just making stuff up. Teach them some analytical thinking. Develop their bullshit detector a little bit. Make them learn something. This isn’t an either/or situation.
