This New York Times article caught my eye, not just in terms of my own personal interest, but in terms of our discussion on science literacy.
As stated in the article, this event will not be “fun” science, but real science, with a variety of programs intended to the entire family. A variety of big-name corporations, foundations, and celebrities are backing the festival and according to their interviews, hold high hopes for wedding arts and sciences with the public.
Given our understanding of the public’s science literacy, general knowledge, and what interests most Americans, is such a program a feasible way to get individuals involved in the sciences? Might this program serve as a fun family activity without instilling any lasting science knowledge or curiosity? Might such curiosity only be fostered in those who are already at the higher end of the spectrum of science literacy and interest? If the answers to any of these questions are “yes,” has the fair achieved its goal?
Monday, April 7, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I find it really interesting that the article mentioned the use of dance to convey scientific themes. By doing this, it seems that other subjects are needed in order to promote science and allow the general public to connect to it. Is science so out there, so different, that people can't connect to it unless it is seen through a more popular subject, such as dance or fiction or on a tv show.
Although this seems great at first that science can be used in other subjects for people to connect with, it seems that science on its own is not gaining momentum. As we saw in the science blog survey in class today, people think they know science, they had no clue about influential scientists, stating people who are just highlighted by textbooks, media and tv and therefore, maybe not the most forefront scientists today/even scientists. This is something to be concerned about.
When I began reading this article I viewed the festival with cynicism and doubt that this could achieve the effects that the directors predict. I agreed with the original poster that, perhaps, this festival will meet the audience that is already geared toward science anyway.
I don't know how they plan the logistics of it with regards to getting people who would normally never set foot in NYU to be there. These universities and museums where parts of the festival are being help seem to be places that those who seek knowledge would go. When it boils down to actually getting there, then it is true that only a small portion of people care. Perhaps they should strive to have these huge science displays in places that are not stigmatized by people as being a place for 'smart people'.
Near the end of the article I began to feel that this might be a good experience for people that actually attend. Relating science to things that many people are exposed to, like The Bourne Identity and other popular things, will be effective in capturing people's interest. Although they said that this is not 'fun' science, this seems to be a bit of a contradiction. If you want people to be interested and enthusiastic in something, then wouldn't they think it it fun?
I agree in that it's interesting that the coordinators of the festival would choose to highlight "real science" by “moving science from the cultural fringes to the center.” This calls into question-- what exactly is "real science?" We addressed this question at the beginning of the semester... and came up with the definition that science is a reliable body of knowledge. Now we are examining ways in which that knowledge is transmitted. In this case, "real knowledge" is being transmitted through Muppet shows, dance, music, and art-- cultural fortes of New York City. I think this festival is a good thing in that it explores some other methods of science communication. Certainly, those who leave the festival will be left with some of that reliable body of knowledge-- regardless of how they learned that "real science" (whether through Alan Alda or a university professor), I think all that matters is that people are being exposed to it.
While this science fair may not be getting Americans directly involved and probably won't convince anyone to get a degree in science, I agree with Patty, in that at least they are being exposed. It may start out as a family-fun excursion sparked by talk of Alan Alda and Dr. Honeydew, but I feel that many of the individuals who attend might actually take home an important message: science is everywhere. It's a reliable body of knowledge that relates to everything, art and culture included. Scientists work for Disney and on movie sets. Although it's not test tubes and lab coats, it's still science.
Are some of the criticisms of this fair and its feasibility coming from the image of science? Are we intent on involving citizens in chemistry, physics, and beakers? Or do we want to involve them in the less conventional science that they find interesting?
We can't ALL be chemists and EVERYONE can't understand the Top 20 science facts that the leading physicists create. Seeing as a 'Top 20' list is nearly impossible to create (not to mention teach) shouldn't we try to simply interest people in science and potentially spark some desire to learn, rather than force 20 odd facts? Isn't a real contextual understanding of science more important than memorizing facts when it comes to science literacy? If we want people to pay attention and know how to respond to political and personal issues involving science, they need to know how it applies. If you want people to know the names of leading scientists then maybe this fair isn't going to work. But if you want people to pay more attention, get a better understanding, and know that science is everywhere and is a huge part of movies, art, culture, and life itself, then I think exposing them is the best place to start.
In regards to the previous comment, I do not think it's necessarily a problem if people need to use other ways to connect to science. Not everybody is interested in science, and people who are artists may similarly not understand how others can not connect to art like they do. I think they realize that science is integrated into everyday life but in order to engage with the subject they need to see science through another lens(something they have more of an interest in).
Although people may not leave this science festival with a new knowledge of science, I think they will get the general idea that is trying to be put across. They will see how science is all around them and can even be incorparted into things they liek such as art or dance. At first I thought it would only attract the small group of people who want to become scientists or who already are. However, it says the festival will stretch from the Met to the Gugghenheim, and will even be in the NYU sports complex. This will definitely attract different audiences who may be at those places without even knowing the festival was going on. And this is just the first year for this event; with it being exposed it will definitely become more popular in the years to come such as other events have.
I think the fair will definitely acheive its goal to some extent. Exposing people to science through other means is just the first step. Everything needs to start somewhere, and I have no doubts that this event will become a big hit over the years, especially by being in NYC. You never know what kinds of people the festival will spark and interest in, and this interest may later develop into much more.
Post a Comment