public knowledge of science
I want free public lectures about science (and okay, social sciences, humanities, politics, art, whatever — but especially science!) to be as freely, conspicuously, and ubiquitously available as church/synagogue/temple services. In a city the size of Boston, people have the opportunity to choose from hundreds of free lectures about religious ideas every week, probably several within easy walking distance. Counting Christian, Jewish, and Islamic, these offerings hit Sunday, Saturday, and Friday; plus scattered such offerings sponsored throughout the week.
Viewed in this light, religious services are simply free public lectures about religious ideas, and I want the same for science: multiple series of lectures on biology, astronomy, nuclear physics, astrophysics (I really don’t get it at all), geology, chemistry … Choose between folksy styles with food & discussion, lecture styles from authoritarian learned types; series that tie it all into politics, or series that tackle the ethical questions relating to particular scientific techniques.
Over the last few months I’ve been thinking about the various statistics on US citizens’ belief and understanding of evolution, claims of particular religious beliefs, and the like. Recently I’ve followed the Dover, PA, trial, read various histories of science, religion, and the conflicts between religious and secular values. Here in the US and elsewhere, the forces of religious intolerance, bigotry, and ignorance are on the rise. At the same time, polls seem to repeatedly suggest that knowledge about basic science is declining and belief in creationism is rising. At times, it can look pretty bleak.
The dubious appeal of religious doctrines aside, some piece of this must surely be an artifact of the availability of particular kinds of information. The supply of information helps shape the demand, and we are well supplied (I might say too well supplied) with religious information. Religious institutions provide free public lectures on a weekly basis from people who are (some lay ministers excepted) trained in the field.
In a sense, religious services prove the effectiveness of open content as a means of popularizing a source of information. How many billions, quadrillions, zillions of dollars have been given to religious groups over the years freely? (Not counting all the coerced funds produced by ties to the state or through outright violence.) Religions are funded with the pledge drive from hell: every single religious service. “We interrupt this service … to ask you for money to help keep our services going. You don’t get this quality of direct-to-God information anywhere else! Pledge now, and you’ll get this lovely piece of pie in the sky when you die! Marked with our logo.” Religious institutions give away their content for free, and they get back in spades: donations to support mega-churches, cathedrals, “towers of power” and so on.
Knowledge about the world — science, our governments, our communities, our environment, our history and literature and art and human nature and health — is not comparably available. This knowledge — which would go so far to empowering and pleasuring people — is carefully metered out to those who can pay for “higher education”.
But imagine if we had free public lectures about science every week; several within walking distance from any point in the city. Would it make a difference? Could people fill the deity-shaped holes in their hearts with excitement and passion about the real world? Could we imagine no hell below us, above us only sky? and then learn why the sky is blue and how fast light travels and really help people understand dark matter and black holes and string theory, for gods’ sakes?
I’d love to find out. And I’ve seen a few moves towards greater openness of academic & scientific content. Stanford is making public lectures available via iTunes. I’ve recently seen advertising on MBTA for free public lectures from Harvard. It’s not quite multiple ongoing series of free public lectures, but maybe it’s a start.
Every university and college should record just a tiny fraction of their content and make it available for free to the public. Consider it a good-will gesture for all those high-handed renovation projects that so annoy the local neighbors. Start with the big lecture hall introductory classes. When a professor wins an award for lecturing or teaching, tape them for the next semester & put them online so everyone can see how fabulous they are. And all those endowed lecture series are just begging to be digitized and made freely available. Many of them have been taped for years; digitization would simultaneously preserve the original tape, make the material more widely available, publicize the lecture series, and honor the, uh, honoree.
And frankly, I’d like to see how well the much-vaunted popularity of religious doctrines stands up to a little competition. [Perhaps this whole issue lends support to the entertainment industry's contention that "you can't compete with free" ....]
update 11/22: This posting about “open knowledge drives out closed” is relevant …
update 12/4: Just read about Cafe Scientifique in an article about PZ Myers.
update 12/21: PZ Myers / pharyngula has this relevant post about scientists’ need to communicate clearly, succinctly, engagingly.
algorithmically similar posts:
» professorial copyright wackiness, 2008-04-04 (score:20)» foglio comic online !, 2005-05-23 (score:19)
» Mercury Rev, 50 Cent & Halsey Burgund, 2005-05-19 (score:17)
» Wiley copyright imbroglio at science blog, 2007-05-01 (score:17)
November 9th, 2005 at 1:50 pm
Very interesting post. I actually think it probably wouldn’t be a success, but I find the idea intriguing. I may make a post in reference to it and trackback to you tonight.
November 10th, 2005 at 8:19 am
hi, as a scientist i am inspired by your idea and would love to be a part of it but… have you ever actually been to a public seminar on a scientific topic? From the scientists point of view, it normally gets taken over by people with specific, non-science education agendas i.e. try discussing GE in Europe or Evolution in Kansas.
Also, from a human point of view – science is really hard. i’m still struggling to understand my own field after 15 odd years of study and i’m still a wet behind the ears newby to my older colleagues. Doing good work is hard, communicating clearly with your peers is hard, communicating complex ideas to interested laypeople is hard(squared)and you want me to put myself in front of a group of people that won’t honour the ‘rules’ of polite argument? with all due respect, it’s not too surprising if not many scientists can handle that kind of pressure. As for seminars, wander into your local university and just sit down, it’s way more fun than doing an actual degree! i also think new communications mechanisms hinging on the web might enable more of what you’re looking for – podcasts just being the first step. i wouldn’t be surprised if in 10 years we can just flip on our 3D visors and sit in on a lecture/discussion on anything 24/7.
November 10th, 2005 at 9:25 am
A few responses to points raised by Kyle & Joe.
(a) Public seminars on scientific topics become unruly & rude. Well, that may be true, but it need not. The tone of discussion has to do with the rules of the format. Church services don’t have Q&A, for example. And people tend to go to church services, not to challenge the message, but to hear it, and to either blindly accept it or to process it privately (or to forget it completely). In this respect, church services and large lecture hall classes typical of undergraduate required classes seem somewhat similar — except that church services are freely and ubiquitously available.
On the other hand, maybe the public seminar on science model (with Q&A) is a better model for conveying information than church services, or maybe it’s better for conveying scientific information.
Really, my point is just that I wish that science information were ubiquitously & freely available. Religious information is, and I suspect that is a major reason that religious institutions and religious beliefs continue to thrive. Here we are facing a crisis in science education and literacy in the US, and yet religion is booming.
(b) Science is complex. That’s for sure. But so are religious doctrines. Complex, confusing, often self-contradictory, embedding and linking to lots of other ideas. A religious services leader might “preach” on an ongoing series of related topics, work her way through an exegesis of a religious text over a series of weeks or months, or tackle the material in any way she wants. Religious service leaders are doing some form of teaching, after all. They may or may not do it in an intellectually honest or rigorous way, but the fundamental pedagogical and organizational problems religious service leaders confront must be in some respects similar to those that other teachers face. I grant that the essentially subjective and frankly made-up nature of religious doctrine gives religious service leaders a flexibilitly that is perhaps more akin to the flexibility experienced by literature teachers than science teachers. But I don’t believe that scientific information is uniquely unsuited for mass distribution in low-interaction, informal, voluntary settings.
In fact, we teach science in serial form in primary school and universities, so the information is certainly able to be packaged in a variety of ways. The problem I see isn’t the packaging, it’s the dissemination: scientific information just simply isn’t nearly as available to people as religious information.
(c) Finding good teachers who are willing to do it must be hard in science as it is in religion.
(d) I really hope that new methods of delivering information, like podcasts, will get rid of some of the imbalances in access to valuable information.
(e) But really I’m not seriously proposing anything, nor seeking to defend a proposal. My point basically is just that religious information is widely available, and I believe that significantly contribures to the enduring popularity and longevity of religious institutions and doctrines. I mean, really, it’s almost a perfect model for distributing and marketing information products: If you look at churches, synagogues, and the like, what are they selling? Completely made-up stuff with an obvious financial interest in selling it. And yet people buy it! When they could buy something else or take the religious information for free. Religious information is given away for free, and it generates its own popularity.
Yes, the story is much more complex: childhood indoctrination, tradition, government coercion, social pressures, blah blah blah. But if we just pull out the information distribution strand, and compare religious information and scientific information — it’s no wonder that in the marketplace of ideas science is losing out. Because markets aren’t just made up of what’s the best product; they’re also comprised of the most available products at the best prices. And if we want to know why religion outcompetes sciences as an explanation for human evolution, then maybe one part of the answer is information distribution.
November 15th, 2005 at 1:45 am
This is beautiful… I was just talking about similar ideas today with Jo Spanglemonkey. The amount of money that people in a church contribute is quite a lot – to support the staff, building, insurance, everything! And what if you just took the people in a neighborhood and said, “Here’s some extra taxes. Here’s the amount of money. Now what services do you want?” Who the fuck would say “Lecture me about philosophy and morality?” How very strange. Instead, better school in general – free school all the time on anything, close by and accessible, for all ages, community spaces, and childcare. Hell… tool libraries. WTF on the churches. It’s insane!
November 15th, 2005 at 6:09 pm
I think this is great – but I think there is maybe a disciplinary problem. Yes, religious ideas are complex, but a great deal of effort goes into presenting them in ways people can easily understand. That is an aspect of being a religious speaker – it has been professionalized and well rewarded within the field (as it were).
I’m not sure that the same thing has been done for science – i don’t sense a huge priority on communicating to laypeople, well rewarded by the field. any actual scientists want to chime in on this one?
ps. hiya it’s your former Samuelson Clinic GSR!
November 19th, 2005 at 1:50 pm
Late late late, but here is my response.