Science and Knowledge

I really liked the article about putting science into your life. Mr. Greene has written what many believe, that science is not being given the acknowledgment it deserves. Today students are required to take science but are only taught the basics and not why they need to know about plants growth or the stars, just that their there and cool to look at. Along with science in schools being looked over society has also forgotten the importance. Today on TV, it is the celebrities that receive recognition. There are no scientists dressed in the latest fashion, getting their pictures and gossip stories placed in 17 magazine or vogue. Children only see actors, models, etc. going to parties, buying a large house and latest technology. It's unfortunate that all kids want to be an actor or singer and live a life where they entertain instead of helping change the world. It is only when a potential problem to life like global warming or nuclear wars where science is even given some recognition and it is only people yelling at scientist to fix the problem instead of trying to help. It is already known that other countries are way ahead of the United States in math and science and that needs to change. It will not be easy to make science popular because most children and myself included sometimes look at a math or science problem and groan. We just have to try and bring back a spark of excitement to science and hopefully people with grasp that importance of pursuing a science career.

I completely and totally agree with Anonymous above. In India, Science is given a completely different approach. Till the 10th grade, we learn the very basic principles of science, and without even bothering to understand them, we're made to write exams, which are so objective, there's no way of telling whether the child has understood the concept or not. Science is a chore to most children, but some, like myself, do develop a deeper interest in it. So what happens to these children? I, personally, hated the Indian system of education, so I transferred schools, and joined the International Baccalaureate, where my whole perspective to Science was changed. My Chemistry Higher Level teacher actually told us to forget everything we had learned till the 10th grade, because it would not help us at all, and now I'm here, in the USA, a potential Biology Major. I have friends back home, who are equally interested in Science, and their career path is set for them. They went to "junior college" where one learns nothing in the classroom, and relies on help outside the college professors and then goes on to study Engineering or Medicine. Some people get into these professions only because they are under pressure from their families to do so. They have no idea about how interesting Science could be, if only taught correctly, or taught the right things. I have no idea how Science is approached in the USA, but I speak for India when I say that Science is way more interesting than it's made out to be in India, and if people don't realize that soon enough, India may have hoards of engineers and doctors who don't even like the profession they're in, and that would be a shame, since Science can change the way we view the world we live in.

This article got me thinking about the state of science education and education in general, in the public school system.

Coming from a family full of elementary school teachers I understand both sides of this issue. As a high school student I was constantly frustrated by the lack of interest and attention that was paid to the sciences. I was also bored by the courses because they all seemed to be just readings straight from the book and the labs that were never innovative or "cool" enough to really keep me interested. I was especially miffed by the AP sciences courses I took because everything we learned was taught so that we could get a better grade on the exam and raise the school's statistics. I can understand why sciences are getting lost or forgotten by a majority of teenagers and I wish that everyone could appreciate what science has given us.

On the other side of things, I know the struggles that the teachers in public schools are going through. Teachers become teachers because they're passionate about their subject and they really want to educate the future of this country. Unfortunately, money and politics are getting in the way of our teacher's ability to teach. The sad truth is that most schools in this country do not have enough money to invest in science courses and make them inspiring and engaging. It is also difficult for schools to get science textbooks and lab supplies because they are very expensive. There's also standardized testing that restricts most teachers curriculums. When the money a school receives is based on a set of numbers, the teachers have to teach to that test, which is sad.

I hope that in the future, the school system in this country will change drastically because it would be devastating if our generation grows up and forgets about the importance of science.

Thinking back to elementary school, I remember that my school focused a lot on making science fun. We would perform experiments, that thinking back were very simple, but as a 4th and 5th grader, they were incredibly interesting. However, there was so much to learn, that it's really difficult for schools, especially elementary schools, to do anything other than wet one's appetite for future exploration in science. For some students, this is enough to keep them interested, and leads them to study science in high school, and into college. But for many others, science just isn't interesting enough to keep the students interested. Unfortunately, it is this way with many subjects in school.

With language, My elementary school would do alternating semesters of Spanish and French, in hopes that it would keep students interested in learning a language. Unfortunately, It didn't work for all students. However, the schools did the best they could with the limited funding and time that they had available to them.

It's unfortunate that not everyone can have the desire to study everything, but realistically, most people just don't have the time, or motivation. Instead we choose early on in life what we feel we are most interested, and with any luck there will still be the opportunities later on in life (such as at college) to explore other subjects, whether they be science, history, of a foreign language.

I am just thankful that I had teachers from early in my education who motivated me to further explore science.

I found this article interesting because I personally don't understand how someone, as a student, could AVOID asking the big questions when studying in the field of science.

However, I do understand that in the current education system there's a definite degradation of science as a discipline (although that can be said for most subjects). In Dr. Greene's article he said, "in teaching our students, we continually fail to activate rich opportunities for revealing the breathtaking vistas opened up by science, and instead focus on the need to gain competency with science’s underlying technical details." Coming from New York I really see this problem occuring in the school system because teachers have to teach to the regents exams, so there isn't much room to ask the big questions. The students are too busy memorizing diagrams and charts to make any real inquiries, and I think that Dr. Green is correct in saying that this system is obviously flawed.

I agree with Greene on the way science education is taught today. I don’t think that giving students tons of technical details is the right way to approach it; in fact, I think that it simply bores the children. Until my 7th grade biology class I was never particularly interested in science because I found it too cold and uninteresting. Though the class wasn’t really taught differently, I found the subject matter interesting and pursued science from then on. Unfortunately, many children are not as curious about science as I am. Consequently, they are turned off to science completely because of their classroom experience. I don’t think that there are any real excuses for not teaching students the bigger picture or amazing discoveries, though I do think that Sarah may have a point about the lack of school funding. In order to improve the educational system there needs to be more funding, particularly in a state like mine (CA).

I would like to quickly add that there have been many programs that I have loved that helped explore the greater concepts of science. The show NOVA, for example, first made me realize that I wanted to become a scientist. I still remember one show I saw that told me that many of the stars I see may already have “died” millions of years ago. A statement like that definitely put me in awe. There are also radio programs such as Radio Lab that cover recent and relevant discoveries and important concepts. Radio Lab recently had Greene on and he was able to talk about the possibility of multiple universes and what would go on in them. These sorts of things amaze me and I am sure that they amaze other people and young children. Is it really so difficult to integrate concepts like these into the classroom?

It is interesting to read articles concerning the unpopularity of science if only for the reason that I have never considered it in that light before. I suppose I too took science for granted. I thought that curiosity, the desire to solve problems and the drive to gain knowledge was something everybody engaged in however I don't think I ever classified those behaviors as being scientific. Looking back at my high school experience it is obvious that science was not taught in the most beneficial way. Instead of instilling in students the impulse to question all things further we were taught that once outside the classroom it became okay to take everything at face value. Science was treated as nothing more then a class to be passed and dismissed at the end of the year.

I think for many people, the concept that the process of scientific questioning and reasoning can be implemented in everyday life simply doesn't occur. In my mind the statement that the older we get the less inclined we are towards discovery for ourselves rings extremely true. I think it is in part because the older we get the more aware we are of social expectations and the need to go with the majority's opinion. I believe if science were presented as a mind-set or a way of living life and the desire to pose questions and go against the flow of the majority was reaffirmed from an early age many more people would feel comfortable forming their own opinions and conclusions based upon there own beliefs and findings.

In response to Dr. Franklin's question about truth, I would say that science is about looking at the world in different ways. 'Truth,' in science, is dynamic, changing throughout time as technology advances and as new questions are asked. Scientific 'truths' must constantly be challenged in order for us to understand the world better. Think back to the 1400s, when people, including the scientific community, accepted the notion that the world was flat; to those individuals, the world being flat was a truth. We look back now, and think of how silly such a notion was, but scientific history is filled with many more stories of once widely accepted 'truths' proven false. But it is only because of the scientists who dared to question the standard way of thinking that we have a better understanding of our world. The so-called 'process of continuing inquiry' is an essential part of science. Not only does the scientific community need to challenge accepted truths, it needs to ask new questions. The more questions one asks, the more benefit there will be to scientific understanding. For this reason, it is more important than ever for young people to get involved in science and technology. The world needs more scientifically inquiring minds--a number of people, each bringing a new perspective and a fresh question to investigate, and each person challenging his or her peers to ask more questions. By looking at a problem from multiple angles, we are more likely to find a solution.
That said, I believe more often than not, schools do not encourage students to think dynamically; schools are more focused on teaching the accepted truths of our time. While it is important to understand what has happened in the past in order to grow and look to the future, students must also be encouraged to stray away from the curriculum and explore their own curiosities, and they must always be encouraged to ask questions and challenge ideas. If teachers could get students more actively involved in science class, rather than only lecturing and having students memorize, students would not only learn more, they would develop a greater appreciation for and interest in the sciences. As others before me have mentioned, this problem is not unique to the field of scientific academia, but it extends to a number of subjects and is a result of numerous factors. Hopefully we can overcome these obstacles, and everyone can become an inquiring mind.

I really liked reading this article because it relates to something I was thinking about today. One of my 'interdisciplinary' classes, "Environment and Society", has many students from different majors and today we had a discussion about how to define terms like science, social science, and humanities. We found that it was quite difficult to separate science from humanities, because both disciplines use similar techniques to view the world, its hard to say which is more subjective and and which is more objective.
A big argument arose between an english major and someone representing a science major. The english major stated that science is not as subjective as reading a poem, for instance. Many interpretations can be made about the author's meaning, the time frame it was written in, and the time frame it is being analyzed in. On the other hand, the science major was arguing that science is more subjective, because the questions a scientist poses, the experiments he/she performs, and the data that one decides to keep and to throw away is quite subjective.
The stubbornness of the english major to accept that science is not just number crunching or mixing chemicals reminded me how much people take science as a dry and dead subject, that one can only study the subject and not live it, not research or create as the humanities do.
I remember that America is something like 48th in the world in science and I try to think back to a time before I was born when the race for space was new and exciting and everyone wanted to be or marry an astronaut. What Greene says, "We rob science education of life when we focus solely on results and seek to train students to solve problems and recite facts without a commensurate emphasis on transporting them out beyond the stars" really rings in my ears and I feel badly that people are not inspired to create and observe the natural and physical world as well as that of the mind and human experience.

Science education in this country clearly does leave something to be desired. More disturbing to me however is the hostility towards science education, not just from students but from all sorts of educated people. It seems that there is a perception that a person can be almost entirely scientifically illiterate, and still considered themselves well-educated and scholarly. I cannot count the number of times I have heard adults and children, smart people whom I respect, explain that they "just aren't science-people." They say this with no hint of embarrassment or regret. Apparently, there is no shame in not being a "science-person." This is not true of other disciplines. Acceptable though it may be in intellectual circles to know hardly any math at all, can you imagine a well-respected scholar explaining that he "never bothered reading that Shakespeare crap anyway?" Certainly not if he expected to remain quite so well-respected. This strange separation between "science-people" and the rest of the world seems to imply that people who do enjoy science learning are simply a strange subset of humanity, and that scientific knowledge is just too much to ask of anyone who is not already inclined towards learning science. It is really a shame that science is viewed this way, because it only serves to legitimize the failings of science education.
The problem of reinvigorating science education is more complicated than simply teaching students to appreciate the fascinating body of knowledge that science has brought us. It is important to remember that science does ask an awful lot of a student, not just in terms of grasping difficult concepts, which will get you pretty far, but also in terms of their temperament. A student of science needs to exercise persistent skepticism, in order to keep asking questions and testing assumptions. Otherwise, what is the point in doing a laboratory experiment to verify a principle already widely accepted as true? This is a more difficult task than can be completed simply by maintaining healthy curiosity about the world around oneself. It is far too easy to take for granted that the answers in the book are all of the answers that we need. This is the crucial difference between scientific knowledge and the scientific process. It is easy to be excited about scientific knowledge, but great mental discipline is required to be excited about the scientific process. A first step in changing science education in this country would be to teach students why the scientific process is such a profoundly inspiring concept. Science education should teach a student that the answers to questions are not granted, they are created, and that by resolving to organize one's inquiries in a certain fashion, by doing a few things that may feel a little pointless or dull, the answers to new questions can be found.

As a kid, I was always interested in science. I wanted to learn about the weather and about why things heated up in the microwave. I was always completely engaged when my fifth grade teacher would set up experiments to teach us how to create a circuit that would light a bulb or encourage us to participate in the Science Fair. I entered high school level science aiming to be a veterinarian when I "grew up." This excitement I had developed for the sciences was quickly squelched when I found out that science placement in high school relied solely on our performance on a math placement exam. Having struggled with math my entire life, I was discouraged from taking advanced science courses and instead encouraged to focus on the humanities. I think situations like this occur all too often; when a child has a passion for science, they should be encouraged by all means to pursue it, whatever the results. Science teachers must not take themselves too seriously, but instead realize that students do not need to be taught to focus on "continuing inquiry," or the process, and that that way of thinking is natural. In high school science, the goal was always to figure out how to get the "right" results out of a scientific experiment. Students always wanted to have the "right" hypothesis in order to conduct an experiment that produced the expected results. By this way of thinking, it is easy to lose sight of what the author, and I, would consider most important: the process. Science should be about the journey, not the destination.

i really enjoyed the article, but i believed that it made science seem like it wasn't difficult to teach. i love the optimisim of mr. Greene but i don't believe that he took into account how many people are in a typical high school or middle school science class when he decided to say that the teachers are not making the class more relatable. i think that it is the job of the student to find something to relate with when they are that young and in an enviornment where the teacher cannot possibly make each class relatable to everybody in the class. but other than that i think that mr. Greene's article was interesting.

This article brought things into a totally new perspective. Usually, science is considered a dry, factual subject that requires little or no imagination. It certainly isn't referred to 'exciting' or 'creative' by any means, least of all in my high school. As the article stated, basic information that was considered essential for getting into a good college was just crammed into our brains so that we would be able to spit back answers onto exam sheets, no questions asked. The point is, we forgot to go back to the roots of science itself, which all started with questions of the unknown world and the passion for learning the answers. As Dr. Greene stated, we were all born with that passion when we were younger, whether we knew it or not; the incessant questions that we asked our parents from 'why is the sky blue?' to even 'what is that made of?' proves that we all have the basic questioning nature in all of us. Sadly, that little scientist seems to die in most of us. I myself truly experienced my questions of the world being quenched as formulas for compound chemicals and the structures of neutrons and atoms overwhelmed me. I'm almost 100% positive that this would have been different, however, if as Dr. Greene suggested, the thirst for inquiry was first nurtured within me. Instead of stuffing formulas within my head, it would have been nice to see the effects and wonders that these compounds made.

Coming from Korea in particular, science isn't treated as a wondrous process. Instead, it is a means of getting ahead and owning the technologically most advanced machines and gadgets, or using it to better the nation in some frenzy of national pride. This is exactly why Dr. Hwang claimed that he had developed a way of cloning stem cells, thinking only of the esteem and respect that he and his country would receive instead of how the truth would crush the hopes of hundreds of lives. The answer to this problem doesn't seem simple, however, as I can think of no viable solution to the education system that schools instill now. It's true that the facts and content that we are given now are essential to go forward in the name of science, but it is also true that the way in which the content is delivered seems to be killing whatever curiosity students hold. Is it possible to find a way that will stimulate and engage students while delivering the facts as well?

I particularly liked the quote "content should be chosen to facilitate the development of inquiry skills rather than starting with content and then trying to present it in a way that also develops inquiry skills." This method of teaching is focused on persuading people to question so called 'truths' and building curiosity. In that sense, rote memorization of dry content is counterproductive in teaching because it does not create a self-driven desire to go beyond the assigned course work. I believe many of us are speaking from prior experiences when we bemoan the current education system. We have all been victims of un-engaging memorization and test/statistic- oriented course work. It's unfortunate that solving this problem requires extensive politicking and a sluggish race through the many hoops and obstacles standing in the way of change.

Students raised in the 21st century have a harder time grasping the true beauty and excitement that science has to offer because there is an easy access to entertainment. It is a lot more appealing to turn on the television or play a game on the computer than to ponder the mysteries of nature. Greene said that we are all born as little scientists and I absolutely agree. But, being a part of a society where not much thinking is involved to be entertained contributes to the dilemma of having less children interested in the math and sciences. The methods of how science is taught also contribute to why many students don't have a hunger for this particular knowledge. I think that because there is such rigidity and limit to what is taught, many grow up not knowing what science is or can be considered to be. Science is a term that encompasses an entire spectrum of concepts, ideas and mysteries; therefore it is very difficult to teach. Because it is much easier to teach science in very technical manner most students cannot feel the relevance of what is taught inside the classroom to the outside.
In my high school I participated in a robotics team and the whole purpose of the program was to inspire the participants to becoming science and technology heroes. If students are given the opportunity to have hands on experience or even just prompted to explore their curiosities then many will see that science is an adventure worth traveling.
The purpose of science is not finding truth because truth connotates an end or a conclusion, instead it is about thinking. Science is about being curious, creating original ideas and continuous exploration. Science cannot be solved but must be continuously improved. However, Although the goal isn’t truth, I believe that it can be found. I think truth is also a very spiritual term. Therefore, even if someone cannot find the concrete answer to their question or experiment the process itself can be very fulfilling. (I think Professor Brian Greene would agree as well. He also believes science can be a ‘lifeline’)

I must say that the soldier who was reading about quantum physics has made a connection that no teacher in the science or math departments at my high school have ever made. The fact that this soldier was able to feel more connected to the world he lived in by reading about physics is something that was never shown to me. In my physics class this past year, my teacher never seemed to understand what the connection was to the real world and why what we were doing was useful. Physics and math might as well not be taught if there is no explanation to that leads to curiosity about the subject. These subjects should not be thought of as ways to earn grades or scores, they should be the launching pads for future discoveries. I believe that these subjects should be taught with presentations of what is yet to be confirmed. If no one in the world yet knows how to get humans to mars, maybe we should learn about what they are doing now to get there instead of learning about how to theoretically move boxes around using equations that are given fake names because we couldn't remember the real name anyway. If high school dropouts can be inspired to pursue further education by reading about science, then why can't we keep their interest while in school with the same science?

As many have said before me, science is a process. Through scientific inquiry, one is not searching for "truth" because such truth is unattainable. An observation, that birds fly South in the winter, is the beginning of such an inquiry. But it is not truth that birds fly South every winter-- we have no way of knowing whether or not some variable will change: climate from Global Warming, the switching of the poles (North and South), or some other unforseen change that skews the path of the birds that seek warmer environments in winter.

Science is a process. One of the biggest problems I had with adjusting to college-level biology was the fact that there was not always an answer. My middle and high school, where my love for science developed, taught science as a series of textbook problems that always had textbook answers... And this is clearly not true. (Hah). Teaching science this way, that you have to find an answer, ruins the beauty of observation, of trial and error, and of the continuing curiosity expressed by students interested in science. As Professor Greene stated, students have little sense for the "big questions," being made to focus on the more technical details.

How can we expect students to enjoy science when they think all of the answers come from a book?

When I was in Middle School, we only had "formal" (in the very loose sense of the word) science classes about two times a month. Instead, once a week, the class would go on a day long field study, in order to better understand the natural world and its forces. Using this method, biology, chemistry and physics were mashed together to create one overlapping sense of "Science" and what it means to the world around it and everyone in it. We learned about Dissolved Oxygen and PH levels at the banks of actual rivers, and saw how it affected the fish and other animals there. We studied the velocity of the water rushing past, and were required to memorize native plants. For Geology, we would visit sites like Mt. Saint Helens and the museums and wildlife areas there. This approach was definitely infinitely more engaging than watching PH change colors in a test tube in a sterile classroom environment, without watching what it might mean for whatever's living in the water, all for the sake of a grade or test scores. Not to say that science cannot be engaging in the classroom (it usually is) but I think that people need to see how much science is integrated into our daily lives and the world around us by actually going and observing it outside of a textbook and a controlled classroom.
To me, science seems to be only one of many different ways of knowing. If the perspective of science is limited, what does that mean for a person's perspective on the whole world, and how they interact with it and the people, plants and animals within it?

Yesterday I was talking to my brother, a college junior, about why university-level education has to be so demanding and stressful for students. I just don't see how stretching (to the point of breaking) one's physical, mental, and even emotional capacities can possibly be a successful educational pedagogy. While it may teach skills like prioritizing and stress management, it also has the potential to breed a resentment of the educational process within students.

My brother sympathized. He said that he had read an article in the New Yorker several weeks ago about studies that show one's most brilliant ideas come at moments of complete calm. "This physicist who won the Noble Prize came up with his most imaginative theories when he was at his favorite strip club," said my brother, paraphrasing the findings of the article. (I'm trusting my brother on this one... also, please pardon the crudeness of mentioning a strip club in a homework assignment).

With this in mind, I think that is why I enjoyed General Chemistry lab as much as I did. Not only was I working with my hands, but my mind was engaged in a way that was calming, relaxing. I respect the efforts of scientists like Greene, who strive to make education, and especially science education, creative, magical. Science classes should be taught in that manner, and with real life examples. I experienced the success of this kind of teaching last year in gen-chem lab. One of my favorite labs was a three-week project in which we made biodiesel fuel. Not only was the lab topical to environmental issues, but it was also fun. Get-your-hands-dirty fun. The production of biodiesel is something I now grasp and understand, if only on an elementary level. Still, over spring break I talked to my uncle, a lobster fisherman in Maine, about the advantages of biodiesel over regular fuels, as well as explaining to him why, when producing biodiesel domestically, it is easy to botch a batch.

However, I've seen the pedagogical idea of synthesizing the "fundamentals" with a student's own imagination/innovation back fire. I cannot stand when teachers play the "guess what I'm thinking game" with their students. It seems that often, in an effort to spur a student's imagination and investigatory thinking, a teacher will FORCE them to be "creative," to try to find the solution to a problem before they are equipped with the proper tools/knowledge to begin to tackle it. The results can be humiliating for the student, who feels inferior for not "coming up with the most creative answer," and instead begins to feel the same kind of resentment toward a subject that I feel overworking creates.

So, how does a teacher teach well? And more specifically, how does a science teacher not only teach well, but also inspire his students?

I don't think anyone can answer that question, because like science itself, it has an ever-evolving answer. I do know that seeing the love of science about which Greene talks so personally in his article--the deep satisfaction that comes from discovery (and often it is merely a personal discovery, not an earth-shaking one, that is the most profound)--reflected in one's teacher can be truly inspiring. Having that joy demonstrated and reinforced helps me become more deeply engaged in a subject. Activities that promote such emotions are bound to triumph in the mind's of students. But to force the issue, to make a student feel he could never arrive at such a discovery because he simply "isn't smart enough," will immediately extinguish any spark of interest in the sciences, or any subject for that matter.

As a final thought, again involving the idea of joy involved in investigating the workings of the world, is about how I arrived at my interest in medicine. My interest in becoming a doctor is primarily about being a healer, an active servant to others. But, I could not choose such a path without a keen interest in understanding the human body, a subject I know next to nothing about. I can only assume this interest arose thanks to my mother and father, who both worked in the medical field, and who always took the time to explain to me when I was sick WHY I felt sick. Their teaching, but through explanation and mere example, supports that the best teachers are the one's who are passionate about their subject and patient enough to explain it in an encouraging, nurturing manner.

            Both articles seem to be making the same point; many people have a skewed view when it comes to the idea of science.  Science is not just about learning facts and memorizing formulas; it involves a certain type of thinking.  In “Put a Little Science in Your Life” I really liked the comparison the author made to memorizing scales but never actually playing a masterpiece.  Science is about taking the things you learn and bring them all together to create a new question or to think of something in a new way.  It is great if you understand specific concepts like the parts of a cell and what they do, but science involves taking that knowledge one step further and asking questions and forming guesses and thinking about all the implications that knowledge has on your life.