I've been reading two books about risk and decision making. The first is Predictably Irrational : The Hidden Forces that Shape Our Decisions by Dan Ariely and the second is Risk: The Science and Politics of Fear by Dan Gardner. Both cite study after study from behavioral economics and psychology which tell us that most people make decisions based on intuition and often that "stone aged hard-wiring" is wrong. Gardner talks of "Gut" and "Head" and shows how when it comes to risk assessment, "Gut" tends to overestimate it when recent events or hard-wired aversions skew the perception or probability of a of a problem.
Gardner says this:
The first step in correcting our mistakes of intuition has to be a healthy respect for the scientific process. Scientists have their biases, but, the the whole point of science is that as evidence accumulates, scientists argue among themselves based on the whole body of evidence, not just bits and pieces. Eventually, the majority tentatively decides in one direction or the other. It's not a perfect process, by any means; it's frustratingly slow and it can make mistakes. But it's vastly better than any other method humans have used to understand reality.
I was going to write about this anyway, but two activities this weekend started me thinking about how important teaching "a healthy respect for the scientific process" is.
On Saturday's C-SPAN Washington Journal program, Alden Myer, Union of Concerned Scientists, Policy & Strategy Director discussed "this week's decision by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to hold off from regulating greenhouse gas emissions."
Mr. Myer briefly explained the issue and then took calls. Needless to say, the calls showed a complete lack of understanding of the scientific process and science in general. At one point, I thought a woman had nailed one of the issues, but then she said something like, "well the polar caps aren't melting because of global warming, they are melting because of Jesus..." In addition to outright denials (by callers) of the greenhouse effect (how do you think greenhouses work, sir?), one gem was that the only way we could control climate would be to turn the Sun off and on. I guess that would work...
You can doubt that we are experiencing "global warming," but the consensus of atmospheric scientists, physicists, and meteorologists would tell you that we are experiencing a period of climate change exacerbated by anthropogenic (human caused) processes. Contrary to the scientific consensus, the opinions expressed by almost everyone who called that show on Saturday showed a tremendous lack of understanding of basic physical processes. We, the scientific community, have failed those callers.
[As an aside, I do believe that the people who watch the Washington Journal are more intelligent and more knowledgeable regarding politics and policy than your average American. If, however, I go by the consensus of people calling into the show, presumptive GOP nominee, Ron Paul, would soon be replacing President Alan Keyes after what would assuredly be an easy victory over Democratic nominee, Dennis Kucinich.]
The other thing I did this weekend was attend AstroFest on Saturday night. In recent years, the Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics has really improved this activity with full time faculty involvement and a variety of talks and demonstrations which kept the hoards of kids interested even on a cloudy night. It was great to see the enthusiasm. I often observe how interested elementary school children are in science. I think we lose much of this in middle school and high school and therefore we lose many would be scientists.
Which brings me to my point -- Why do we teach science in college to non-science students? I would often have this argument with my fellow graduate teaching assistants and colleagues in the Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics. Some would teach the introductory astronomy lectures and labs as if we expected all the students to become professional astronomers as a result of going to our classes (forget Wall Street, I want to study pulsars!). I'd poll my classes and about 90% of them would admit that they took astronomy because they had to -- it was a BDR (that's Baccalaureate Degree Requirement, what we now call the General Education courses).
So given that this is the case, why do we teach science and what should our teaching outcomes be? As Dan Gardner says we need to teach a "healthy respect for the scientific process." Whether we teach "Stars for Studs," "Rocks for Jocks," or "Physics for Poets," we need to impress upon college students that science is a process. It can sometimes be wrong and all scientists speak in the language of uncertainty. We scientists are comfortable in gray areas and try to assess certainty, probability, and risk without regard to "Gut." Does this always work? Probably not, but I agree with Dan Gardner that we, as informed citizens, need to understand science and the process of science every bit as much as we need to be able to communicate, write, and understand history as a successful college graduate and citizen.
Oh, and as I always told my students, we also teach astronomy, so that some night when you're out in that field with that special someone, you can find the Big Dipper (Ursa Major), follow the "pointer stars" to the North Star (Polaris) and the Little Dipper (Ursa Minor), and "follow the arc to Arcturus and drive a spike to Spica."
per aspera ad astra
