Science in Public Chapters 3-4
Daniel Quinn, in his novel Ishmael, asserts that traditional Western science is its own mythology. Everything from the Big Bang Theory to the extinction of dinosaurs and evolution of human beings is a story that is told by scientists. While this way of seeing traditional science does not foster a full appreciation of the intricate process that characterizes scientific investigation, it is a potent reminder that science is inexact. This is one of the conundrums that Chapters 3 and 4 of Science in Public grapples with. Science is a broad and complex field, divided over many issues and processes, and seemingly confused as to whether sharing itself with the public is a positive or negative experience. The authors examine science in this context in the two chapters, raising important issues and questions.
Though erratic, the general focus of Chapter 3 seems to be the composition of science—what does the field consist of? There are figures such as Stephen Hawking who, in the late 1980s, brought his brilliant work in physics to the public via his book A Brief History of Time. At the extreme left of popular science, however, there are New Age and alternative theorists who challenge traditional scientific explanations of the phenomena of this world. Many in the traditional scientific community view this extreme left wing of science as “anti-science”. This chasm of left and right gives birth to questions about the validity of traditional scientific epistemologies and about objectivity and subjectivity. How do we know what we know, and do we really know?
Gregory and Miller then examine science in the context of power. Science has a large impact on the economy and therefore politics, and so carries clout. Who wields this power that science possesses? Many argue that men, particularly white men, are in control of the scientific world. This has resulted in scientific contributions to a domination of nature by western culture and therefore to the environmental problems that accompany such a quest.
The authors delve more deeply into the popularization of science in Chapter 4. They describe unofficial rules among scientists that govern their interaction with the public sphere. Generally, these norms suggest that scientists not enter the popular realm until they are retired from a distinguished career in research. If there is an opportunity to better the public image of science, however, a scientist may consider popularization. Few scientists, such as Carl Sagan and Margaret Mead, have been able to enjoy successful and respected careers as scientists and communicated their research well to the public.
Science journalism finds itself amidst scientific and public spheres, each distrustful of the other. Fortunately, the role of the science journalist can be viewed as somewhat simple—to communicate the ideas of scientists to the public in a lucid manner. The authors quote Lievrouw, who defines communication like this: “the purpose of communication is to reconstruct one person’s idea in another person’s mind.” In so doing, perhaps journalists can rid the world of the hierarchy of knowledge that the authors describe.
