As I was reading the article about the so-called "Master of the Universe", I was struck by one particular paragraph in the article:
"...Tyson sees himself as a citizen of the entire universe, and he believes knowledge about science can help protect what [Carl] Sagan called 'the pale blue dot' of Earth. '[The science documentary] Cosmos is not only about updating you on what science is but also conveying why it matters--especially in the 21st century, when issues related to science are fundamental to political issues,' Tyson says. 'These are political hot potatoes that could be settled or informed if we became more scientifically literate.'"
Issues such as climate change, vaccinations, GMO's, amongst others could become non-issues (or at least, seen simply as partisan talking points rather than true scientific unknowns) if a greater contingent of the public understood science, even on a base level. The fact that many people who self-identify as "climate change deniers" don't understand the scientific process, don't understand how scientific theories and laws are developed, and don't understand what a preponderance of empirical evidence is...well it's frustrating, considering all of these things are taught in junior high. We have 12-year olds who have a better handle on how science works and why it matters than their parents do.
I remember listening to an episode of The Diane Rehm Show on NPR several years ago, where the subject being discussed was climate change. Her panel of expert guests were scientists representing various agencies and organizations, and they all extolled the fact that climate change is, indeed, happening. At one point in the discussion, when Diane opened the phone lines, a caller admonished her for not inviting a panel member "from the other side" to represent the opinion that climate change is not occurring. Diane (very correctly, in my opinion) answered that it is not her practice to have a contrasting opinion represented during a scientific discussion, when the overwhelming evidence (and overwhelming consensus of the scientific community) is contrary to that dissenting opinion. That would be like having a serious intellectual discussion about gravity, and bringing someone onto the discussion panel who claims that gravity does not exist on Earth.
I sometimes wonder about people who are anti-science. Science is what has propelled medicine, air travel, electronics, agriculture, food safety, energy, amongst many other things we take for granted. Why people would trust politicians to feed them information on climate change when they would never trust one to fly a plane, perform surgery, inspect their food, or develop reliable energy sources...I don't understand. Why do folks doubt science so much? Especially in a time where scientists don't tend to be rich (and yet the average member of Congress is a millionaire) or bow to special interest groups, I can't quite put my finger on how scientists have ended up as the "bad guys" in so many people's minds.
I think many people in this country are intimidated by intellect and education. Heck, I can admit that I am! I love science, and I understand it to a large extent, but I am nowhere near the level of being an elite scientist. But, rather than feel alienated or defensive by this fact, I tend to embrace the fact that there are people like Neil DeGrasse Tyson who DO understand many things about the world far better than I ever will. I look to them to explain this subject matter in a way that I CAN understand, so that I can make more informed decisions about how my elected officials should create policy. I don't look to politicians for the answers.
Carl Sagan's widow, Ann Druyan, states in the Parade article that after years of "hostility toward science", we "are beginning to look up at the stars and dream again."
If putting Neil DeGrasse Tyson on the cover of the magazine is any sign, then I sure do hope so.
No comments:
Post a Comment