Ch. 1
Introduction to Science Literacy
page CHAPTER 1 — INTRODUCTION TO SCIENCE LITERACY
Understanding technical concepts
Science and technology play a major role in modern everyday life. These technical topics interact heavily
with our economy, medicine, entertainment, politics, arts, and religion, for example. Every individual
needs to be conversant with the general workings of science; most of all, everyone needs to be able to learn
about the technical topics that touch our lives.
– Vocabulary –
Aristotelian model of the natural world: The most widely accepted way of viewing nature
before the development of modern science. It was highly intuitive.
Empiricism: The observational and experimental approach to science. The search for qualitative
and quantitative relationships between physical quantities that are found in nature. Empirically
determined relationships may provide clues that eventually lead to a deeper understanding.
Enlightenment, The: An 18th-century philosophical period based in western Europe that was
characterized by logic, empiricism, and skepticism. Also referred to as the “Age of Reason.”
Intuition: The means by which knowledge is gained without the rigorous use of logic. It is usually experience-based.
Logic: The (mathematical) science of valid reasoning so that cause and effect are reliably
connected. The correct use of deduction and induction.
Philosophy: The set of general beliefs, ideas, and attitudes that provides the foundation for an
area of knowledge.
Physics: The part of natural science concerned with the most fundamental phenomena,
particularly the structure of matter and forces between different material units.
Process of modern science: A communal process of examining nature that demands critical and
quantitative comparison of theory with experiment.
Renaissance (European): The 14th, 15th and 16th centuries in European history that were
marked by a general and vigorous stimulation in intellectual thought plus physical and spiritual
activity. It included specific advances in music, technology, literature, politics, commerce,
construction (such as churches), exploration, art, science, etc.
Science (also natural science, physical science, or natural philosophy): The field of study of
phenomena found in nature by using the senses. Today this includes biology (life science).
Science literacy: A state of education achieved by people who appreciate the role of science in
modern culture, and who are capable of dealing intelligently with technology as they need to.
Scientific Revolution: The 17th century period in Europe that saw the birth of the modern
scientific process. It was driven by the Renaissance and by many individuals such as Galileo and
Newton. In turn, it provided the impetus for The Enlightenment.
Technology: The use of humanity’s knowledge about nature to serve the purposes of man. Both
science and crafts (empirically acquired) are combined to develop technology. (Sometimes the
tangible products of technical development are also referred to as technology.)
Ch. 1
Introduction to Science Literacy
page – Expectations –
In this chapter the student is expected to learn the most basic and general ideas associated
with science and technology, including a definition of science literacy. Of particular importance is
familiarity with the modern process of science and its historical predecessor, the Aristotelian model of
natural philosophy. It is also expected that students will develop an appreciation for the fact that
science is specific and precise, both in its use of numbers and its use of language. For the course as
a whole, the main expectation is that citizens will become knowledgeable about science literacy
so they can be effective when casting their votes at the ballot box.
Ch. 1
Sections 1-A, B
Introduction to Science Literacy
page 1-A. The Role and Meaning of Science Literacy
Many science students take courses in music appreciation, but few ever play an instrument
or compose an opera as a result of those courses. Many engineering students take courses in art
appreciation, but they are not expected to turn out fine sculptures as homework. In other words,
such courses do not emphasize that students do the topic; rather, students learn about the topic.
This text tries to extend the same idea to physical science. The word science is derived from the Latin
term scientia (skee en’ ti a), meaning knowledge. Today, “science” refers to systematized knowledge
about the natural (or physical) world. Knowing this definition is a start toward science literacy.
Scientifically literate individuals have acquired the kind of science understanding that will
help them cope within their culture. Today, this means that these individuals are familiar with the
most basic and important concepts of science. They should also know how science and technology are connected. Further, they should possess an historical and philosophical perspective of the
evolution of science, along with an understanding of the process by which scientific progress is made.
Science literacy enables students whose talents and interests lie in other areas to gain an appreciative
overview of topics that will touch and enrich their lives in many ways. Science literacy also can enable
us to avoid panic when faced with a new (to us) technology, and it implies the ability to acquire at least a
modest competency that will help us cope with the new technology. There should be an understanding
of how reliable a particular technical topic is. It is also essential that it include an understanding of the role
played by numbers in science. Mathematics cannot be ignored in science literacy, but it may be treated
as a language for expressing concepts quantitatively rather than a rigorous problem-solving tool. This is
very different than the traditional view of learning math, and students who feel they have a fear of math
need to be open to this new approach. If we are scientifically literate, we need not be intimidated about
facing new technical topics.
Although we develop a broad vocabulary while striving for science literacy, a fully comprehensive vocabulary and conceptual familiarity are not possible, even for a professional scientist.
There is just too much material in the realm of science for an individual to be conversant with it all.
It is not necessary for every citizen to develop a high level of proficiency (comparable to a Ph.D.
scientist’s) in science. After all, watching a professional athlete perform does not intimidate us into
forgoing our own participation in the sport. We may still play golf or shoot hoops for pleasure. We
may not appreciate art as well as Rubens, but we can appreciate it at a meaningful level. Likewise,
we should be willing to become “scientifically literate” even though our level of proficiency will
not match that of the professionals. We should develop a skill level that allows us to appreciate the
impact of research being done in science and technology—and this level of proficiency is easier to
achieve than many may believe.
There is an important social issue in dealing with science appreciation. The fact is that
technical ideas are crucial in nearly all aspects of the modern world, and failure to be scientifically
literate can lead to big social problems. A simple example of this is the furor over food irradiation
(discussed in chapters 5 and 6), a technology with many benefits and almost no risk. It is foolish
that such a valuable technology has met with so much resistance.
Finally, we address the reason that science matters so much in today’s culture. The most
important thing to know about science is the fact that scientific knowledge is so reliable that it
allows us to make accurate predictions about the behavior of the physical universe.
1-B. The Process of Modern Science; Its Limits and Philosophical Base
We are all familiar with the fact that science is associated with certain intellectual processes.
These include analysis (breaking a problem down into simple pieces) and synthesis (putting pieces
Ch. 1
Section 1-B
Introduction to Science Literacy
page together to create a greater understanding). Defining terms carefully is another important process,
as are categorizing and generalizing. But this is just a loosely connected list. If we want to define
the essence of modern science, we must focus on the items that make modern science special.
The crucial elements of the process of modern science are:
1. The scientific method.
2. The use of quantitative methods.
3. The institution of organized skepticism.
PHILOSOPHICAL ASIDE:
Note that the skeptical approach is a very adult
endeavor. A certain level of maturity is needed before
skepticism is efficient. We don’t want children to conduct
their life this way because they do not have the judgement
to avoid dangerous situations. Many simple answers are
provided for children in fairy tales and myths to teach
them the skills they will need to survive. Children need to
acceptandbelieve(withoutquestioning)almosteverything
they are told by authorities (grown-ups). The process of
passing through adolescence is both healthful and painful;
at this time children start to challenge and question almost
everything that their parents say and do.
Intuitive Aside:
In fact, intuitive approaches are likely to appear in
all sorts of human attempts to explain our world. Intuitive understanding implies that ideas “feel” comfortable
to us because they strike a chord with our day-to-day
experiences in a way that “sounds sensible.” Part of
this sense of comfort may arise from living with the
concept for an extended time. Intuition is based on our
senses and our experience, but that experience is evaluated
(sometimes subconsciously) by means that blend art and
science. Thus, intuition is not 100% reliable. On the
positive side, note that intuition is very efficient. That
means humans can quickly come to understand many
ideas with very little effort; we simply do not have enough
time to process every single piece of information in a
logically rigorous and careful way.
The use of language (and its frequent abuse) in the
development of intuitive concepts is crucial. This is one
reason that intuitive understanding can be so dangerous.
Throughout history, silver-tongued orators have done
serious mischief using cleverly turned (and misleading)
phrases that appeal to intuition. Rigorous and responsible reasoning requires a lot more work (including
precise use of language), and it can be less appealing
emotionally.
The scientific method (simplified version) means that theories are
constructed based on observations and
measurements of natural phenomena.
Then experiments are designed to test
the theory in a new regime. Sometimes
we use new observations when it is impossible to manipulate Nature so that a
controlled experiment can be performed.
For example, we cannot create real stars
of special kinds. Scientists cannot create
“black holes” of immense gravity in the
laboratory, but they have searched, with
success, to find black holes that occur naturally. Measurements made of black holes
have agreed with theories that predicted
the possibility of their existence. Comparison of observational measurements
with theoretical predictions is the crux of
the scientific method. Understanding the
uncertainties in this comparison process
is of prime importance, and requires understanding the concept of quantitative
methods.
Note that theories are our best
explanations of Nature’s laws. Theories
may be given a wide variety of names:
models, hypotheses, principles, laws, etc.
These explanations may be overthrown
at a later time as scientific understanding
improves. The science community tries to
find theories that are “simple”, and it also
tries to con-duct “simple” experiments.
This bias toward Occam’s razor has usually
been very helpful in scientific undertakings.
The use of quantitative methods
means that when the scientific method is
employed, theories and measurements
are both associated with numbers. It is
then crucial to understand the uncertainties associated with those numbers. The
Ch. 1
Section 1-B
Introduction to Science Literacy
page concepts of precision and accuracy are used to evaluate the reliability of the process of comparing experiment with theory. In fact, quantities are defined by the operations used to measure them. This concept
of operational definitions is crucial to being quantitative.
The institution of organized skepticism means that a community of knowledgeable people agree
to aggressively review each other’s work in order to weed out errors and bad ideas. Rigorous logic is a
crucial tool in this effort. This is an important feature that sets science apart from other views of the universe. Science is very aggressive about peer review, and it uses precise numbers and exacting logic in the
process of organized skepticism. By contrast, philosophy does not
use data; and religion does not encourage skepticism.
PHILOSOPHICAL
Although this approach to understanding nature is not
perfect, it is very dependable. This is especially true for topics that
have been subjected to careful peer review for an extended period
of time. Of all the areas of human knowledge, knowledge of the
natural sciences has been the most precisely tested and is the most
reliable. This reliability permits accurate predictions, but it does not
necessarily imply that physical science is the most important or the
most interesting discipline.
ASIDE:
It is a common human
condition to encounter difficulty in overthrowing a
well established viewpoint. It
applies to politics, economics
religion, art, sports, etc. In
fact, it is only fair. Presumably, the traditional way of
doing something is a result of
extensive experience that has
worked out fairly well. There
needs to be a compelling case
made for change!
The philosophical foundation for modern science rests on
the idea that the universe is knowable via the use of our senses;
and that we can make precise measurements in this process. We
also believe that there is always more to learn about the universe;
and the only reliable “truth” we can obtain comes from observing
natural phenomena. We also expect the universe to be regular and
predictable. In a regular universe the laws of nature are the same everywhere and for all time. Predictability means that we can use natural laws and a current description of the universe to predict the behavior
of the universe in the future. It also implies that we can look backward in time to reveal the state of the
universe at an earlier time.
It is also important to recognize that the study of physical science is constrained or limited
in two very important ways:
1. Science is constrained to the study of topics that can be studied by human senses (and tools
enhancing the human senses). Unambiguous measurements can be made about the behavior
of such topics, particularly by employing carefully defined operations. Thus, art, literature,
poetry, religion, justice, and traditional philosophy, etc., are not areas of science.
2. Topics within scientific areas are quantitatively limited due to many conditions: instrument
restrictions, measurement fluctuations, human error, chaotic systems, Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, etc. Within science, quantitative limitations can never be fully overcome.
Historically, the process of modern science became widely accepted in the 17th century.
This occurrence is sometimes referred to as the Scientific Revolution, and it reached its culmination
with the work of Isaac Newton. It grew out of the Renaissance period that gave birth to new ideas
in western Europe in the 14th, 15th, and 16th centuries. The 18th century that followed is frequently
called The Enlightenment (or the Age of Reason).
In the next section we will examine an early (and not so successful) attempt to understand
nature that did not meet the standards of the process of modern science. The Aristotelian approach
to natural science was the most popular predecessor to the process of modern science. Despite its
shortcomings, the Aristotelian model is worth discussing because it is still the model many of us
use in an intuitive effort to understand how objects move.
Ch. 1
Section 1-C
Introduction to Science Literacy
page 1-C. The Aristotelian Model of Motion
Before the birth of modern science beginning with Galileo and Newton, natural science was
much more intuitive and much less quantitative. Typical of this pre-modern science was the nowdiscredited analysis that was formalized and advocated by the influential Greek scientist Aristotle
(and his followers). By examining this Aristotelian model, we can appreciate the importance and the
effectiveness of the more rigorous approach used in modern science.
The Aristotelian model is the result of observation and logic, but one reason this model
has limitations is that it is not based on careful measurements. That is, the Greeks trusted
more in qualitative logic; they were less concerned with the quantitative implications of their
theories. In particular, they were not inclined to precisely test their theories. The kind of manual
labor that is necessary to perform crucial experiments was held in low esteem. Thus, the scientific
method was not developed at that time in history (a few hundred years BC). The Aristotelian model
lasted a long time; the longer it lasted, the more difficult it was to overthrow. Aristotle became an
authority figure of legendary proportions.
According to Aristotle, there are two major kinds of motion. (Note how plausible this simplified Aristotelian description is.)
Natural motion tends to restore objects to their natural position in the universe. At the
conclusion of natural motion, an object will be at rest where it belongs. Natural motion is not caused
by force, but it arises from the intrinsic nature of objects. The objects that display motion are imbued
with lifelike characteristics. They are said to “strive” to reach their natural state. For example, a
rock’s natural place is on the ground at rest.
Arguments of this type conform to our experience. As a result they are intuitively appealing, particularly when presented by a skillful orator. The same type of intuitive appeal continues in the following.
Violent motion, on the other hand, is motion that disrupts the natural order of things.
Violent motion is caused by forces. An example is the process of lifting a rock above its natural
location on the ground.
Forces are either a push or a pull. Mankind uses forces to
achieve a measure of control over activities that take place in the
world. Animals also exert forces, as do the wind and other inanimate
objects. For many ancient people (especially primitive tribes) these forces
implied a guiding purpose (God?) at work in all motion.
These two kinds of motion (violent and natural) were connected in the Aristotelian model with a picture of the natural order of
materials. Greek thought held that the world was composed of four “pure”
elements: earth, water, air, and fire. All other substances were composed of
combinations of these basic elements. The appropriate organization of these elements has earth (solids) at the lowest level, water next, air next, and fire at the highest:
fire
air
water
earth
Now we can discuss various actions in terms of this model. If I lift a stone from the ground,
the motion of the stone is violent, because I am moving the stone from where it belongs. I have
to exert a force on the stone to cause this violent motion. When I release the stone, it will exhibit
natural motion as it returns to the earth. This natural motion does not require a force. At the end of
Ch. 1
Sections 1-C, D
Introduction to Science Literacy
page the natural motion of the stone, it will be at rest on the earth, where it belongs. On the other hand,
fire is even lighter than air, and smoke from the fire rises just as naturally as the stone falls. This is
just another example of the intuitive appeal of Aristotelian science!
A cart moving along a road is in violent motion, since it is not at rest. A force is necessary
to keep it moving. But when the force that causes the motion ceases, natural motion brings the cart
to rest. No force is necessary to cause this natural motion; it arises from the nature of the cart.
Another prediction of the Aristotelian model is that heavy objects fall faster than
lighter objects. This prediction arises from the model: when we lift a heavy object, we are
doing greater violence to the universe than if we lift a lighter object. Consequently a heavy object,
when allowed to fall, will return to its appropriate position sooner than the lighter object. This prediction seems to be supported by observations of falling objects: a leaf, which is light, falls slower
than a book, which is heavy.
Note that natural motion was expected to be up or down. Smoke moves up because it is
light; it could be viewed as mostly a mixture of fire and a small amount of other substances. The
sun itself could be viewed as the ultimate fire (at a very great height). A force was required to make
something move horizontally; thus all horizontal motions were violent.
Celestial motions were a separate third category. They were not of
the earth, but were part of the perfect motions associated with the heavens.
The only perfect motion possible was circular, so all heavenly objects had to
move in circles, endlessly repeating their perfect cycle. This was confirmed
by observation, as long as one didn’t look too closely, or as long as one didn’t
take extended careful measurements!
As an intellectual accomplishment, Aristotle’s statements on Natural Philosophy were
exceptional. For their time, they provided a satisfactory framework for viewing the world on many
topics. Aristotle was very adroit at collecting information and classifying groups of related items.
His most notable achievements were in biology, but he ranged over many fields intellectually with
considerable success. The sheer volume of knowledge that he spanned was awe-inspiring.
His philosophical view regarding ethics and religion attached high value to moderation in
behavior and an acceptance of life as you found it. This made Aristotle appealing to church authorities in the Middle Ages. Thus Aristotle’s ideas became institutionally entrenched on a wide scale,
and people became afraid to challenge any of them. Ironically, the Greeks themselves would have
found this situation unsatisfactory. Their academic tradition was very skeptical and argumentative—it just did not have a significant element of quantitative experimentation.
1-D. Galileo and Newton Give Birth to Modern Science
The predictions of the Aristotelian model were disproved by the experiments of Galileo
near the beginning of the 17th century. He showed experimentally that a cannonball and a small
stone fall at essentially the same rate, even though one might be a hundred times heavier than the
other. This test contradicted Aristotle’s theories in a convincing manner. The most important fact
was that Galileo was skeptical of Aristotle’s teachings, and he challenged these ideas directly and
quantitatively using the scientific method.
It is unlikely that Galileo ever actually dropped objects from the Leaning Tower of Pisa
(he rolled balls down inclined planes instead, using his musician’s training to achieve quantitative
results). The legend that he did so serves a useful purpose: it illustrates that all models must be
subjected to precise experimental scrutiny, and no model, no matter how authoritative and famous,
Ch. 1
Section 1-D
Introduction to Science Literacy
page Even though it is unlikely that Galileo ever performed
this legendary experiment, the fabled story served as
an important cornerstone for the belief in quantitative experimental evidence as opposed to the general
acceptance of theories of the time. This early application of the scientific method highlighted the value and
necessity of the process in modern science.
can survive contrary valid experimental evidence. The legend of Galileo and the Leaning Tower
helps emphasize the importance of the process of modern science.
Galileo also undermined the authority of Aristotle by using the telescope to explore the
heavens. The heavens were supposed to be perfect in every way. The discovery that the surface of
the moon was “messy” and that Jupiter had moons going around it just like Earth had was a real
blow to Aristotelian philosophy.
Of course, society went through a long period of denial that created pain for Galileo and
others before it discarded Aristotle’s views on natural philosophy. Time is always needed for new
ideas to take hold. Occasionally this time may be substantial. It may even need to be long enough
for the opponents of the new idea to die and pass from the scene.
Some aspects of the Aristotelian model still have a strong hold on our intuitive understanding
of motion. For example, most of us tend to believe that forces cause motion, and that when objects
experience no force, they must come to rest. There are many other sources of misinformation (such
as superstition) that muddle our understanding of natural phenomena.
Newton’s Laws give us a very different picture of our world. He consolidated and formalized the theoretical analysis of motion, using a form of mathematics (calculus) that he invented.
The models Newton developed leaned heavily on measurements performed by many earlier scientists. His laws of motion showed that (1) objects resist change in motion (objects possess inertia),
(2) forces cause change in motion, and (3) forces always occur in pairs. Newton also showed that
all objects are attracted to each other through a gravitational force. This implied that the physics
of the earth and the physics of the heavens were the same. The impact on society was enormous.
The process of modern science became well established as a result of Newton’s achievement (aided
by Galileo and others).
Newton’s ideas have replaced Aristotle’s ideas, and are now well confirmed; however,
understanding them requires more sophistication and effort on the part of the student. Intuition is
not sufficient. We know now that the key to investigating natural phenomena is to use the process
of modern science. Only then can reliable models of nature be discovered.
Ch. 1
Section 1-E
Introduction to Science Literacy
page 1-E. The Role of Science and Technology in Society
Currently, pure science is a search for knowledge about the behavior of nature. This activity is almost universally valued. Also, there is only one “truth” (best model) about the workings of
any specific problem in science. The discoveries of science affect our view of the world; this in turn
may affect our cultural and philosophical (or religious) outlook. History cites several examples in
which institutional authorities have reacted harshly to new scientific models.
Technology is the result of attempts by humans to exploit knowledge of nature for the
purpose of serving the needs of people. Thus scientific knowledge can be applied to solving social
problems. It is important to note that much but not all technology is created by applied science.
Some of our knowledge has been acquired empirically, and is the result of trial-and-error experience. This kind of knowledge was well developed long before science became mature. It showed
up historically in all kinds of crafts from weaving, woodworking, and blacksmithing to cooking,
medicine, and pottery production. Modern technology is usually a blend of applied science and
craftsmanship. (As an aside, the term engineering is usually reserved for the development of technology that has a very strong component of applied science and a relatively small component of
empirical craftsmanship.)
Technology is not like science in the way it interacts with society. Some technologies are
valued by some people, but not by others. For example, nuclear power plants are valued by some
people, but opposed by others. Thus, decisions about developing a given technology are frequently
controversial. The reason is that value systems strongly affect such decisions; and value systems
involve issues outside the realm of science.
Consider the general case of electrical power production, starting with three extreme
viewpoints: (1) some people think we should give up such technology completely, (2) others think
a massive conservation program should be enforced, and (3) still others think supplies of electrical
power should be greatly expanded. Many intermediate (and significantly moderated) positions
combining these views might be reasonably proposed. There are also considerable debates about
the means for producing electrical power. What is preferred: hydroelectric turbines at dam sites,
coal or gas plants, nuclear fission reactors, solar or wind farms, etc.? Perhaps we should plan to
incorporate fusion energy sources, even though fusion technology remains unproven.
Also, there is no longer a single correct answer when people do agree that a certain technology should be developed. Even if everyone wanted nuclear power to be developed, there are many
options that would work. Should the design chosen be a breeder reactor or not, should there be
one huge plant or several of smaller size, how extensive should the safety systems be? The number
of variables that must be considered when making technology choices is quite large, and answers
are hard to come by. The easy answers are frequently wrong for society as a whole. When answering these questions about technology, knowledge gained by the process of modern science is a
necessary component, but it is not sufficient. Human value systems (including economic ones) and
technical issues must be examined concurrently. It is important to recognize that the mixing of science, technology, and politics is inevitable!
In fact, a good argument can be made to the effect that solving the world’s problems is beyond the realm of science or technology. It might be argued that the human condition (described so
eloquently in great literature) is the source of most trouble. By this we refer to the human propensity
for greed, lust, sloth, pride, envy, anger, excess, prejudice, ignorance, etc. Many people believe that
the human condition might be improved most efficiently by paying more attention to the humanities
in the educational process. On the other hand, it is also arguable that the human condition can be
improved primarily via scientific means. The viewpoint of this text is that both the sciences and the
humanities are essential components for an individual to obtain a quality education.
Ch. 1
Section 1-E
Introduction to Science Literacy
page 10
In this book, ignorance about science (and its role in technology) is the main concern.
Modern civilization is such that a significant contribution to better health and prosperity for the
population at large can be achieved if science and technology are developed wisely. This requires
that citizens participate intelligently in the decision making process, and this can only happen
through improved science literacy.
One of the earliest technologies was agriculture; its impact on society was great. People
had better health as a result; and they had more time to spend on the arts, sports, etc. Likewise,
our love of art, sport, etc., influences our choices of technology developments. The point of this
is that all human enterprises are linked together. In fact, we will see later that all knowledge is
linked together.
In the 20th and 21st centuries we have witnessed technological revolutions in several areas,
including (but not limited to) transportation, communications, energy, medicine, materials, and the
environment. The science that provides the basis for these technologies is well understood, and
the technologies are quite reliable. There have also been several revolutions in physics, which we
will examine later. In fact, there have been revolutions in every branch of science during the last
few centuries.
In the 21st century, new technologies are dominated by the results of scientific research.
As science has made advances, the pace of technological revolutions has increased dramatically,
so that our ability to adjust to these revolutions is a matter for concern. All of these revolutions
have had a large impact on our culture, and they have been of the “good news – bad news” variety.
But generally, they have been accompanied by economic growth, with the result that people have
more discretionary time to devote to activities of their own choosing. Thus, the opportunity exists for mankind’s discretionary time to be directed toward humanity’s important problems, in the
humanities as well as the sciences.
Science and technology help each other make progress. We have noted that technology is
dominated and driven by scientific understanding today. This was not always the case, particularly
Examples of technology revolutions in the past 50 years.
Many of the technologies have appeared in the past 20 years.
What do you suppose the future will hold? (Seriously!)
Ch. 1
Sections 1-E, F
Introduction to Science Literacy
before the 19th century. At that time, progress in science was
dominated and driven by advances in technology. For example,
Galileo had to be very creative when he did his fundamental
research on falling bodies, using his skills as a musician to accurately correlate distances with time.
We note one more feature of the interaction between
science and society; there are many members of society who
distrust science. Some of these people distrust science simply
because they are ignorant in science. Fear of the unknown is a
common human experience. Others may distrust science because they learn that a certain “scientific” finding was in error
because a scientist had made a mistake or because new data gave
birth to a new (and very different) theory. This latter problem
frequently occurs in medical fields; and this social problem
arises mainly because people don’t recognize that new scientific results are treated as being tentative by scientists until they
withstand the test of time.
page 11
Citizen’s Aside:
Consider a sci-fi utopian
future in which the economy requires little day-to-day
human labor. Citizens might
then be expected to perform
their contribution to society
via the ballot box. Their main
job could be nothing more than
being informed. Perhaps they
might end up voting on issues in their area of “science
literacy competence.”
Exercise: Fill out the details of what such a society
might look like.
There also have been some instances in which scientists
have “doctored” their data, or they have performed unethically in other ways. Some of the research
done by Nazi doctors during World War II was of this variety. Fortunately these instances are quite
rare. One of the reasons that unethical behavior in science is relatively rare is the fact that false
results are easily detected in most cases. Partly because instances of unethical behavior are so rare,
they attract publicity when they occur.
Still another problem that confuses society about science is the ever-present influence of the
pseudosciences. These include astrology, numerology, alchemy, etc. These topics may appear to have
a scientific base, or such may be claimed by their proponents; but they are not sciences! It may be
difficult for the layperson to distinguish such topics from legitimate science.
Finally, the philosophical convictions of some people may hold that “The Creator” did not
intend for humans to have knowledge of the universe. There are several Greek myths that fall into
this category. One of the most famous involves Prometheus; he brought the gift of fire to humanity
(having stolen it from the gods). As punishment for this act, he was chained to a rock and his liver
was chewed out daily (Zeus renewed the liver nightly) by a vulture. A more frequently encountered
version of hubris is the cliché of the power-crazed (or mad) scientist as was depicted in Mary Shelley’s
famous novel Frankenstein. We will examine many science–society problems later in more detail.
1-F. Summary
We have seen that science literacy does not mean a broad and deep vocabulary of scientific
terms and an in-depth knowledge of scientific concepts. It does imply a familiarity with the major
concepts in science, a general understanding of how modern science proceeds, and an appreciation
of the philosophical and historical foundation of natural science. Most important, it means the ability to acquire technical knowledge (free of fear) as it is needed.
We have specifically noted that reliable science required the development of the process of
modern science, a process that demands quantitative and thoroughly critical experimental testing of
theories by a community. A part of modern science that is crucial is the use of operational definitions
(wherein a quantity is defined by the operation used to measure it). We observed that the earlier
Aristotelian approach eventually led to serious difficulties.
Ch. 1
Section 1-F
Introduction to Science Literacy
Finally, we noted that both science and technology have
a large impact on our worldwide society. However, the development of technology is often based on value judgments that are
largely absent in scientific research. We also noted that science
and technology can contribute to solving social problems, but
their ability to do so is constrained by politics. A scientifically
literate citizen will need to be able to recognize established scientific results and to distinguish them from tentative scientific
results, pseudoscience, and unethical science.
In the remainder of the book the process of modern
science will be explored in more detail, other aspects of science (such as concepts and vocabulary) will be examined, and
some of the more fundamental science topics will discussed. In
doing so we expect the student to develop an appreciation for
science within an historical and a philosophical context. This
is a natural first step in achieving science literacy. Finally, we
will attempt to illuminate the roles that science (emphasizing
physics) and technology play in society.
page 12
Aside:
The big ideas presented
in chapter 1 include:
1) The universe can be accurately predicted.
2) The process of modern
science is reliable and
consists of three major
components.
3) Science knowledge is
limited in two ways.
4) Science has a simple
underlying philosophy.
Students should be able
to expand on these big ideas.
Ch. 1
Exercises
Introduction to Science Literacy
page 13
EXERCISES: (Chapter 1) Introduction to Science Literacy
* denotes answer and/or guidance to be found in Appendix A
ALL ARE ESSAY EXERCISES
1.Define science literacy in your own terms, and describe an experience of yours
when you wished for greater understanding of a technical problem.
*2. Describe the process of modern science. Explain why it is superior to Aristotle’s
approach to the study of nature.
3.
How do you think Aristotle might have explained clouds?
*4.Describe the impact of Galileo and Newton.
5. One thing that delayed the development of modern science was the lack of accurate timing devices. Explain why this was a problem.
*6.
What is the difference between science and technology?
7.Define engineering and explain its role in society.
*8.Explain the limits of science/technology in solving social problems.
9.
What will be the most important political issues with respect to science and technology
in the next 20 years? Explain.
10.
Speculate about your own personal role in society relative to the issue of science literacy.
Specifically, what do you think you need to know about science; and what do you think
the effect will be?
Ch. 1
Introduction to Science Literacy
Bibliography
page 14
Bibliography for Science Appreciation
This partial listing of references is meant to provide the reader with a starting point for
future study. The author acknowledges that many more non-technical sources (science history,
etc.) and popular science publications have shaped his views and provided insights. Also omitted
are introductory classics that utilize calculus (Resnick and Halliday, or Sears and Zemansky, for
example), as well as all advanced textbooks.
BOOKS
Alexander, The Human Machine
Arons, Arnold, A Guide to Introductory Physics Teaching
Bodde, Derk, Chinese Thought, Society, and Science, University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu (1991)
Bose, Sen, and Subbarayappa (editors), A Concise History of Science in India, Indian National Science
Academy, New Delhi (1971)
Bronowski, The Common Sense of Science
Bronowski, Science and Human Values
Carnap, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science
Davies, God and the New Physics
Duncan and Weston-Smith, The Encyclopedia of Ignorance
Einstein and Enfield, The Evolution of Physics
Flaste, The New York Times Book of Science Literacy
Friedman, Alan J., and Carol C. Donley, Einstein as Myth and Muse, Cambridge University Press,
New York (1985)
This book explores the popular views of Einstein and his scientific work,
including his influence on the arts.
Gardner, Fads and Fallacies
Gross and Levitt, Higher Superstition
Hazen, Robert, and James Trefil, Science Matters, Doubleday, New York (1991)
Hewitt, Paul, Conceptual Physics, Sixth Edition, Scott Foresman and Co., Boston (1989)
Hines, Terrence, Pseudoscience and the Paranormal, Prometheus Books, Amherst, New York (2003)
Holton, Gerald, and Stephen Brush, Introduction to Concepts and Theories in Physical Science, Princeton University Press, Princeton (1985)
Koestler, Arthur, The Watershed, Anchor Books, Garden City, NY (1960)
A popular biography of Kepler.
Kuhn, Thomas, The Essential Tension, University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1979)
Kuhn, Thomas, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Second Edition, University of Chicago Press,
Chicago (1970)
Kuhn’s views on paradigms and how they affect the structure of science, the scientific
community, the pursuit of normal science, and scientific revolutions.
Lewis, H.W., Technological Risk, Norton, New York (1990)
Mason, A History of the Sciences
Ch. 1
Bibliography
Introduction to Science Literacy
page 15
Ochoa and Corey, The Timeline Book of Science
Pais, Abraham, Subtle is the Lord, Oxford University Press, New York (1982)
The scientific biography of Einstein.
Qian, Wen-yuan, The Great Inertia, Croom Helm, Dover, NH (1985)
Discusses the societal and cultural reasons why China never developed scientifically.
Tobias, Overcoming Math Anxiety
Trefil, Space, Time, Infinity
Weinberg, Reflections on Big Science
White, Lynn, Jr., Medieval Technology and Social Change, Oxford University Press, New York (1962)
Never at Rest
The definitive biography of Isaac Newton.
? The Physics of Dance, Kindly Inquisitors, Two Cultures, Death of Common Sense,
Unarmed but Dangerous, The Nuclear Energy Option, …, etc., etc.
PERIODICALS
Physics Today
Scientific American
The Sciences
The Skeptical Inquirer
This quarterly magazine is dedicated to scrutiny of the pseudosciences.
etc., etc.