Scientist and Non-Scientist: How to Bridge the Gap

The Asimov’s chapter on the science gives an interesting account of the evolution that science has undergone. It holds that the science has developed not only for sake of its application in everyday life. But also, the man’s curiosity has compelled him to pursue knowledge for its own sake. Then he turns to philosophical foundations upon which the evolution has rested. In this regard he elaborates on the long-standing discourse between deductive way of reasoning and its inductive counterpart.

What I found particularly interesting in Asimove’s writing, is his final recommendation regarding the future direction of science in the last part of his essay. He believes that the development of science in the modern society has not been free of detrimental side effects. He particularly focuses on the damage that has been done to nature (destruction of Earth’ crust). Paradoxically his concern has not only faded away but has heightened in the early 21st century. He also suggests that the black box of modern science has to be opened up for non-scientists. The main argument is if the emerging gap between the scientific community and the public diminishes many of the destructive consequences of modern inventions or advances in science can be avoided. This requires the scientist to explain their field of study as simple as possible, and the non-scientist accepts the responsibility of listening.

The paper I found, bears a close relationship with Asimov’s mentioned as a solution to detrimental effects of science.  Leggett and Finlay (2001) reports on an initiative to overcome the barrier to effective communication which posed by scientific jargon and technical language. They contend that the modern life is over dependent on fossil fuel consumption. Scientific community would fail to turn the problem unless public understanding of the issue is raised. So the study has been concerned with questions like “how does the general public conceptualize differences between energy from fossil fuel sources and renewable energy? Do they see renewable energy as a viable alternative, a way of living on our energy income rather than our capital, or do they see it as a return to the dark ages?”

In order to investigate the above mentioned question, they have strived to delve into the ways people make sense of conflicting information from multiple sources. They design an interesting experiment within which the individuals communicated with peers where no technical jargon with regard to subject matter (the energy industry) was needed. The participant drew on pictures or storytelling to express their impression, opinion or hunch.  To this end they were able to convey more effectively their tacit knowledge or unconscious meanings. The study concludes that most of members of public have concerns and personal experiences concerning renewable energy, but the technical jargons and formal language put bounds to effective communication of these ideas.  Additionally, the researcher maintains that the kind of techniques employed in their experiment can afford participants with the freedom to explore their own understanding and express their agendas through their own language.

References:

Leggett M R and Findlay M 2001 Science, story, and image: a new approach to crossing the communication barrier posed by scientific jargon Public Understand. Sci. 10 157–71