The answer is scientists; therefore, I believe they have the responsibilities to educate the people about science in order for them not to feel afraid toward science. Bishop explain in his essay “Enemies of Promise” that scientists should do something about it to removed our fears, “science is the art of the possible, of the soluble” (239). However, Bishop also says that regardless of that there is still a feeling of fear toward science because science has been considered to be dangerous for some people. I do not think science is dangerous, in the contrary, I believe that science has contributed to cures for diseases. If scientists do not have knowledge to find cures for dise... ... middle of paper ... ... evolved a lot.
This article will help to focus down the definition of the public understanding of science, and will serve as the prime example in the understanding of the issues it causes. Before one can understand the public understanding of science one must view the current model of understanding of science itself. The dominant model of science influences the separation between scientists and the people. It affirms that science is complicated, and therefore creates the belief and reliance in scientists, being the self-proclaimed professionals in that field. The people are drilled mentally into believing that the scientists understand everything there is about science because they are educated in that field.
Dreams of Fame in Djerassi’s Cantor's Dilemma Opportunistic scientists, the most hypocritical deviants of the modern age, revolve around the scientific method, or at least they used to. The scientific method once involved formulating a hypothesis from a problem posed, experimenting, and forming a conclusion that best explained the data collected. Yet today, those who are willing to critique the work of their peers are themselves performing the scientific method out of sequence. I propose that scientists, or the "treasure hunters" of that field, are no longer interested in permanent solutions, achieved through proper use of the scientific method, and rather are more interested in solutions that guarantee fame and fortune. Fame and fortune as a motive for scientific discovery is a popular theme in fictional writing, especially in Cantor's Dilemma by Carl Djerassi.
There has been a serious debate within academia, as to the validity of Political Science being an actual science. Furthermore, there are opposing viewpoints between political science scholars as to the discipline being a social science or a synthesis of natural and social science. One such academic; Charles Merriam asserts that political science has the characteristics of both sciences, because it adapt the study of human behavior to provide an analysis of political institutions. Political scientists in theory espouse the notion that political science borrows elements from the hard sciences in terms of objectivity to scientific inquiry and how governmental institutions function. As a soft science, it is extremely difficult a strictly measurable criteria for a methodology and objectively.
Thus, declaring that science and its "truths" are just "socially constructed fictions." Bishop believes that science offers more to us than we think and that it is "the best way to learn how the world works." Garcia 2 Bishop is alarmed about postmodernists, who believe science is just another "politics by other means." He thinks they are being ignorant and feels uneasy that postmodernists are being joined by other voices that are against science. Various scientists are also becoming critical of science and they believe that science is not diminishing the societies problems.
Pseudoscience occurs when a topic that in itself is not scientific is treated as a science. Despite society’s general disregard for the demarcation point between science and non-science there are real, everyday consequences to accepting these fields into our scientific domain. So why are certain theories classified as scientific? On one hand there is an ignorance and apathy in regard to this demarcation, on the other hand pseudo-sciences are accepted as sciences because of the appeal they hold in intrigue and comfort. The situation is made more complicated by science that is practiced in an unscientific matter.
The problems of the general public, supposedly invoked by the scientists, lie in the hands of society. The miscommunications of the media, ignorance, and neglect for the environment, contribute to the misapplication of scientific information. Lewis Thomas, a graduate of Harvard Medical School, defends the motive of scientists to pursue their research. Very often, scientists are charged with hubris, the "overreaching pride that leads humans to start 'doing things reserved for the gods' " (Thomas, 236). Techniques, such as recombinant DNA and in vitro fertilization, are means by which society believes scientists have defied the intentions of Mother Nature.
Karl Popper is known for being one of the most influential philosophers of science. Karl Popper, like many others, used a logical analysis of arguments to explain how science truly works. With his theory of falsification, Popper explains how scientific theories can never be proven, but can be falsified (Doria, 2009; Grant, 2005; Kurz, 1996; Shareef, 2007; Ter Hark, 2004) Specifically, Popper gives reason as to why science does not progress by proving theories right, but by discarding old theories as wrong. The idea that multiple observations cannot prove a theory to be correct, as the next observation can contradict them, is what made Popper question how valid a theory could possibly be (Doria, 2009). But what about modifying a hypothesis?
Scientists that seem to completely ignore these qualities of good science are those that misuse their work. Some scientists that misuse their work aren’t even true scientists, i.e., the press and the fame-seeking scientists. When a scientists or any person that researches and presents findings begin to formulate a hypothesis they must think of a question that either hasn’t been answered, or needs to be corrected. An example of this is Hubble’s Law. Hubble figured out how to find this constant even though his first try was way different than what we accept today.
In fact, researcher Davida Charney posits that “[t]he very notions of accuracy and newsworthiness are at the heart of the conflict between scientists and journalists” (216). So what really are the roles and responsibilities of science journalists, and what are some of the subsequent incompatible values dividing the two communities? In my paper, I will argue that the public communication of science is more challenging than other forms of journalism due to the underlying conflict inherent to the relationship between scientists and journalists. I will examine two specific issues which hinder the accurate communication of scientific information; the sensationalism and commercialization of science which is promoted by science journalists, and the inaccessibility of the scientific community. Finally, I will consider some implications of poor science communication, and conc... ... middle of paper ... ...y (Riesch 771).