My personal theory is that many responsible for teaching science in the K-12 grades are not doing a great job of communicating that science is a process for finding truth. Definitely not laying this at teachers’ feet - standardized testing and curricula, overcrowded classrooms, underfunded schools etc all contribute I’m sure, but I get the impression from talking to even well educated people that they were taught science much like they were taught math: there is a right answer, your job is to regurgitate it.

Biology in particular but also chemistry is often taught with rote memorization at its heart, and it’s easy to lose sight while getting the current thinking jammed into working memory that in the bigger picture, science is a process. Fast forward to various stages of adulthood, and when ‘science’ (not actually a thing as a whole but presented as such in the media), in light of new information, changes course or updates its priors on something you’d accepted as fact, and you might perceive scientists, a group of whom you may know none, as condescending and overconfident. In fact scientists disagree over everything and doubt way more than the public would believe but that’s often a footnote to the way the story of the scientific process is presented.

▲

jdw64 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I deeply agree with your statement.

In fact, I think science teaches a specific methodology and a specific mental model for viewing the world. However, the scientific method is a shareable verification procedure, whereas scientists' mental models are fragmented depending on individuals or schools of thought.

So I think modern science is a collection of elaborately designed mental models for interpreting phenomena.

Those mental models differ from person to person, and when you read the writings of various scientists or prominent figures, you realize that even for the same theory, their interpretations are slightly different. Anyway, I've gone off on a tangent.

I am an uneducated person, so it's hard for me to speak carelessly, but as you said, we often tend to overlook the fact that when we talk about something being 'scientific,' it's spoken of as if there is a single correct answer. And as that standardized version gets talked about as if it were the 'truth,' the essence gets diluted. I think you have a point there.

Thanks for giving me a perspective I hadn't considered. So being a 'Doctor' really does make you different

▲

doctorhandshake 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Thanks I am not a doctor - that’s an old music nom de guerre

▲

convolvatron 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

this is a huge point of frustration to me. the anti-science populist is resentful that science has claimed the mantle of authority to decide what is right. but all of the scientists I know personally, while they have a massive background context about phenomenon aren't claiming any such thing. they are struggling with methodological problems and just hoping to get an interesting glimpse about what's actually going on and show others. its basically forbidden in all the fields to use the word truth with a capital 'T'. I'm sure there are purely political and excessively egoistic scientists. but for the majority their relationship with the polity has been captured and twisted by .. I guess parasites?

	▲	jdw64 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		First, I'll give you an upvote. However, when we talk about things, we always look for the good people around us, and when we talk about our own identity or the people we admire, we tend to see only the good side. I understand your frustration and anger, and I believe that the vast majority of people are good. But aside from that, there have been cases where scientists acted because of corporate greed. There's DuPont's PFAS, and there's the tobacco industry. The moral corruption of a small number of such people affects the image of the vast majority to which that small number belongs, after all

▲

1auralynn 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

We don't pay teachers enough to entice people who are really good at science to teach at the K-12 level. There are some who do of course, but to make it a viable career choice for a talented person, we just need to pay better salaries (and vastly improve working conditions)

▲

JumpCrisscross 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Biology in particular but also chemistry is often taught with rote memorization

I’m guessing with high confidence none of the parents who are busy getting their kids sick got even this.

▲

doctorhandshake 8 hours ago | parent [-]

It may be a correlation - I don’t have data - but I have some experience with ivy educated adults rejecting modern medicine and science with scorn for the perceived arrogance of doctors and scientists.

	▲	JumpCrisscross 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> I have some experience with ivy educated adults rejecting modern medicine Could they answer basic, and by basic I mean high-school level, chemistry or biology questions? (More pointedly, were they admitted in the free and clear, or are they legacy?)