Blog prompt 5

There is no doubt that vaccine-autism advocates are scientifically incorrect.  Not a single scientific study shows a correlation between vaccines and autism, and numerous studies demonstrate that the risk of injury from vaccination is far lower than the risk of disease from being unvaccinated.  But is it accurate to call vaccine-autism advocates scientifically illiterate, or ignorant?  After all, these individuals probably have done much more “research” on a scientific topic than most other individuals have.  What do the tendencies of vaccine-autism advocates to ignore scientific evidence, yet believe Jenny McCarthy, teach you as a science writer?  

First off, remember that the "vaccine -autism advocates" are in many cases not scientists themselves. They may be doctors, lawyers, politicians, celebrities, pirates, or pundits, but they are not themselves the ones doing the research on these subjects. So far as I know, no current studies are out there supporting a link from childhood vaccinations to developmental disorders and autistic progression. And all of the well known advocates such as Jenny McCarthy did not do "research" on the topic, seeing as they are not themselves diagnosticians or researching medical professionals. Even the advocates who are medical practitioners are practicing doctors, not researching. So they may see links, and they may even have found data to back up their position. But they themselves have done little to no experimentation on the data that they use as their supporting evidence. And that would be fine... were they english majors in college writing a paper on possible links between autism and vaccinations for, say, a class in science writing. But given that they attempt to change policy and definition of a number of things with their positions, it matters. Websters dictionary defines research as " studious inquiry or examination; especially : investigation or experimentation aimed at the discovery and interpretation of facts, revision of accepted theories or laws in the light of new facts, or practical application of such new or revised theories or laws." Thus research requires actually testing the data that you are using to support your position. Anything else falls more under the heading of "finding sources." 

In Totality, the fact that they are unwilling to follow what science says doesn't make the vaccine - autism advocates ignorant, or quite scientifically illiterate.  They obviously have come to a conclusion based upon some of the available data - cutting out other factors and data to suit their own position, however. They use scientific results, or at least semi scientific results and data to support themselves, so they cannot be completely functionally scientifically illiterate. Really what it means in the end is that they are unwilling to believe in other positions than their own. They are on the side of what is good and right, and therefore cannot be wrong. Sadly, an attitude that all too many people hold today, and there's really nothing that we can do about it. Proving them wrong doesn't work because they disregard data that does not work in their favor. They aren't illiterate scientifically, regularly illiterate, or even ignorant. The best way to term them, really is as "fanatics". 

Blog prompt #4

Professor Hirsh-Pasek challenges that students should "find ways to apply their major and their personal subjects of study to the common good," also mentioning that it is the duty of scientists and science writers, along with others, to make all attempts to "give science away." Now admittedly, my own specialization is not in any of the hard science fields - my major and minor specializations point me purely towards the social sciences and the humanities; specifically, focusing down from Media and Communication Studies into English literature and Film Studies. I personally do believe that media can be applied to the common good, despite the mass predilection people seem to have for assuming that the media is the cause of all the evils of the world, or that violent media is a major factor in violent actions by youths and adolescents. I'm not saying that it is un-involved entirely; I have no proof to the contrary in any means. But the studies I've read on the matter are either hopelessly out of date, or are phrased in such a way as to appear to be absolute gobbledygook. But that is neither here nor there.

My own reasons for taking a class in science journalism mainly revolve around the media - I saw the name "Decoding Science", and my mind translated it as "Debunking Science", or "Decoding Technobabble." And that is the key of how I see media being used "for the common good", as much as to Give science away. When factual technology and science are included in fictional movies or programs, they impart some knowledge subconsciously to the viewer. They may not really realize that they have gained some scientific literacy from the program or the film, but they will have, no matter how slight. That sparks an interest, and people look to the internet, friends, or other references to satisfy the curiosity that comes from it. If they find what they were looking for, grand. But more likely, especially with the internet as it is, as soon as you find one thing, you'll find links and connections to others, leading you down paths of interest to find out more.

Look at some of the television shows on the air in recent years - All the CSI series' show high technology being used to solve crimes, in ways of derring do that actual science labs would never in fact enact, at speeds there is no physical way that they would be able to achieve. But the basic science of how the machines work is there. Look at older programs as well - artificial intelligences abounded, problems could be solved by throwing five more syllables of technobabble at the bridge crew, and the final frontier was explored, where no man had ever gone before. Programs like star trek, sci fi epics of that vein inspired millions on paths of science, technology, and discovery. At this time, I believe the world is simply waiting for the next epic of that vein to appear, and it is the responsibility and pleasure of science fiction writers, science journalists, and media producers to provide it.

Blog prompt #3

Why do kids stop liking science after a point? Between preschool and middle school, what drives them away from it?

Now, I've done no research on this topic at all, so I can only speak from experience on what might drive children away from the love of science, dinosaurs, and space that they culture and nurture when they are young. I know I certainly wanted to be a firefighting astronaut who ran to save the day riding a stegosaurus. But after a point, for most of us, that changes. Its not a matter of one single factor that drives children away from that love of science, but many. For example, elementary school through middle school is five to eight years of being bludgeoned over the head with a science book that says the same basic things in different, fancier language as you go on. Very few children get to simply study dinosaurs, or space, or cars - we all get the same generic run that covers many subjects in little detail. That in turn means that we can't find those interesting little facts that really keep someone interested in whatever branch of science they may be interested in. To top that off, theres a never ending parade of useless things that get thrown at us over the course of our childhood school careers. For example, one memorable instance for me was in my sixth grade "science" class. I can't remember what the technical name of the class was, but one would expect that you would do something interesting once you've gotten into your teenage years, and made it to middle school. We did nothing more interesting than heating water in that class, and nothing resembling an experiment in detail. But the point is, at the end of that class we were given the grades for all the assignments we'd turned in for the course of the marking period. I got mine back, and one was mysteriously absent, taking ten points away from my grade. I asked what this was, knowing that I had turned them in. I was told that You were supposed to take notes on everything we did in class; you were told that the first day. And I had. But apparently he had been counting that first day on how to take notes something that we were supposed to take notes on and turn in. That was the missing ten points.

Even as we continue through the "science" education we get in our younger years, we hit high school. In abstract, we've learned almost nothing except that science is there to screw us over, and we've lost any desire to really attempt. The "experiments" that we get to do once we hit high school even are hardly experiments - we're told the expected results, even if we don't achieve them.

If children were given more variety to find their own interests over the course of their school lives, we might have a following of science once again. People might still be able to name all the kinds of dinosaurs, even if scientists could agree whether or not some exist, or whether or not the planets we learned in grade school are all still planets. For all we know, within the next few years they could decide that Jupiter isn't in fact a planet, but a "large semi autonomously operating gas compression unit" or something equally self important sounding.

I think if journalistic science writers, like those we see in Kaku's "best science writing of 2012" were allowed to write the textbooks we teach kids out of, then maybe more would be interested, maybe more would keep that spark. Alternatively, if more Mythbusters was shown in science class, I think we'd all be a lot better off for science. Or more interested, whichever comes first.

Blog prompt #2

"One could argue that the more educated people are, the more they’ll understand media pieces about science and be able to follow public debates about scientific issues.  But the ASR article we read for class today suggests that there’s a limit, namely that education does little good if people have a powerful political or social reason to mistrust science and if they have easily available arguments to challenge scientific consensus.  How can the ASR findings help you become better science writers?  Better scientists?  Better citizens?"

To start with, the ASR findings remind you to remember that people will not necessarily react in the way you might expect them to means that you can calculate for that, which allows you to be able to reach people even when they might prove closed to the ideas you were attempting to impart. If you realize that you cannot take the tack of simply telling them that something is so, then you either have to find a different way of phrasing it, or manage to convince them of something without being able to rely upon what is said by scientists or most of the scientific evidence. 

These come down to the same necessity of thinking, in a way. In my experience, if you can manage to simplify something enough, without dumbing it down to the point that it becomes condescending, you can manage to at least get the concept across to most people. They will not necessarily believe that it is true, but a succession of enough simple concepts is somewhat more irrefutable than a large, abstract concept like global warming. Many people automatically distrust the idea, not only because it has not in fact been proven, but also because there has been so much argument and so much contention over it. So when attempting to get your point across, you cannot simply say that "global warming is happening." Not only is that not true, but its likely to turn people off to whatever you may be writing, saying, or doing. But, for example if you say that "over the last several years, measurements have shown a steady global increase in temperature on average", or that "observations have shown that the polar ice caps have been steadily shrinking", you have not said anything that is untrue, and people are left to draw their own conclusions about the state of the world. This affects  almost equally scientific research, citizenship, and scientific journalism. 

As its been said in class - "Question everything." Its a good basis for science, science writing, and citizenship. Keep in mind that people will not always believe what you say, just because you say that its from scientists. Hell, people may disbelieve what you're saying because its from scientists. But invariably, people will draw their own conclusions, some of them in direct opposition to what scientists or science writers may believe. However, the job of the citizen is to be informed, in all essence. Its the jobs of the scientist and the writer (or science writer) to convey that information and ensure that the public is informed. That is what we must always keep in mind as science writers. Our job is not to convince the readers of what WE think is right; We must realistically assume that we can be wrong, even are likely wrong about the conclusions we draw. We can only present the data in the long ring - question the data, question the scientists. Question their motives, biases, assumptions, hypotheses, question their math if you have to. Equally important, its the job of the scientist as much as the science writer to be objective with their findings - keep in mind that people will not believe - show the data and how it was found, giving people no credence to be able to say that something was hidden, or a factor was thrown out because they don't believe in the same god. 

But above all, never assume that you are right because others are wrong. Objectivity is what this study brings to the table, and everyone should have some. 

Blog prompt #1 : Literary methodology on the experimental strata

Or, in simpler english, scientific literacy and the scientific method. Scientific literacy is an important concept in general, because people need to have at least a general grasp of how science works so they do not make attempts to condemn it as vile witchery, or simply brush scientific discoveries and concepts off because they don't mesh with their personal beliefs. I wouldn't say that scientific literacy is explicitly necessary for a functioning and robust democracy, but it certainly helps a great deal, and may explain why the american model has persisted for hundreds of years beyond its expected utility. Many of our founding fathers had solid groundings in the scientific theory and literature of the time. But even if true scientific literacy is not necessary, or at least not necessary at a level of fluency, I would say that knowledge of and familiarity with the scientific method are necessary, both for participants in the democratic process and for candidates and participants in the political portion of the democratic process.

If a candidate for office has any idea what they are talking about, they will at some point be forced to bring up more esoteric concepts than the construction of a molecule, be it from an economic science standpoint or a pure technological standpoint. For the professionals and industry interests that will lend support based upon those portions of their campaign platform to parse and decode these statements and technical jargon, its fairly easy, given a professional investiture and a reason to need to comprehend it. But for the regular people that make up the majority of the vote, they aren't likely to have an encyclopedic knowledge of new technologies and concepts. Once, this would have been more of a barrier than it is today. Easy access to knowledge and industry publications virtually guarantees that if one is willing to look, and knows how to, that they can find at least a baseline of information on nearly any subject they could care to name. In its essence, the scientific method can be applied to that concept in the method of search, as well as allowing people to understand the basic theory of how the research was organized and completed. So while scientific literacy isn't precisely necessary for democracy to run, a basic grounding in science and the scientific method is.

De-invert the polarity of the starboard parietal lobe

Pontificating, prestidigitating, evasculating. Unzip the helix on the tri-aluminum-hyper-oxalate. 

If i have my way, this is the vein that this is going to continue in. Or perhaps not. But given my own interests, other blog posts, and hopes for the future, I think I'll stick with a media outlook on science as this progresses. The URL name is not entirely inaccurate or entirely superfluous - decoding the technobabble inherent in the media may just bring the perceptions of the group up, allowing actual comprehension of the majority of scientific discourse.