Periodicals and television can strike sparks as they give us a glimpse of science, and this is very important. But – apart from apprenticeship or well-structured classes and seminars – the best way to popularize science is through textbooks, popular books, CD-ROMs and laser discs. You can mull things over, go at your own pace, revisit the hard parts, compare texts, dig deep. It has to be done right, though, and in the schools especially it generally isn’t. There, as the philosopher John Passmore comments, science is often presented
as a matter of learning principles and applying them by routine procedures. It is learned from textbooks, not by reading the works of great scientists or even the day-to-day contributions to the scientific literature . . . The beginning scientist, unlike the beginning humanist, does not have an immediate contact with genius. Indeed . . . school courses can attract quite the wrong sort of person into science -unimaginative boys and girls who like routine.
I hold that popularization of science is successful if, at first, it does no more than spark the sense of wonder. To do that, it is sufficient to provide a glimpse of the findings of science without thoroughly explaining how those findings were achieved. It is easier to portray the destination than the journey. But, where possible, popularizers should try to chronicle some of the mistakes, false starts, dead ends and apparently hopeless confusion along the way. At least every now and then, we should provide the evidence and let the reader draw his or her own conclusion. This converts obedient assimilation of new knowledge into personal discovery. When you make the finding yourself – even if you’re the last person on Earth to see the light – you never forget it.
As a youngster, I was inspired by the popular science books and articles of George Gamow, James Jeans, Arthur Edding-ton, J.B.S. Haldane, Julian Huxley, Rachel Carson and Arthur C. Clarke – all of them trained in, and most of them leading practitioners of science. The popularity of well-written, well-explained, deeply imaginative books on science that touch our hearts as well as our minds seems greater in the last twenty years than ever before, and the number and disciplinary diversity of scientists writing these books is likewise unprecedented. Among the best contemporary scientist-popularizers, I think of Stephen Jay Gould, E.O. Wilson, Lewis Thomas and Richard Dawkins in biology; Steven Weinberg, Alan Lightman and Kip Thorne in physics; Roald Hoffmann in chemistry; and the early works of Fred Hoyle in astronomy. Isaac Asimov wrote capably on everything. (And while requiring calculus, the most consistently exciting, provocative and inspiring science popularization of the last few decades seems to me to be Volume I of Richard Feynman’s Introductory Lectures on Physics.) Nevertheless, current efforts are clearly nowhere near commensurate with the public good. And, of course, if we can’t read, we can’t benefit from such works, no matter how inspiring they are.
I want us to rescue Mr ‘Buckley’ and the millions like him. I also want us to stop turning out leaden, incurious, uncritical and unimaginative high school seniors. Our species needs, and deserves, a citizenry with minds wide awake and a basic understanding of how the world works.
Science, I maintain, is an absolutely essential tool for any society with a hope of surviving well into the next century with its fundamental values intact – not just science as engaged in by its practitioners, but science understood and embraced by the entire human community. And if the scientists will not bring this about, who will?
20
House on Fire*
{* Written with Ann Druyan.}
The Lord [Buddha] replied to the Venerable Sariputra: ‘In some village, city, market town, country district, province, kingdom, or capital there lived a householder, old, advanced in years, decrepit, weak in health and strength, but rich, wealthy, and well-to-do. His house was a large one, both extensive and high, and it was old, having been built a long time ago. It was inhabited by many living beings, some two, three, four, or five hundred. It had one single door only. It was thatched with straw, its terraces had fallen down, its foundations were rotten, its walls, matting-screens, and plaster were in an advanced state of decay. Suddenly a great blaze of fire broke out, and the house started burning on all sides. And that man had many young sons, five, or ten, or twenty, and he himself got out of the house.
‘When that man saw his own house ablaze all around with the great mass of fire, he became afraid and trembled, his mind became agitated, and he thought to himself: “I, it is true, have been competent enough to run out of the door, and to escape from my burning house, quickly and safely, without being touched or scorched by that great mass of fire. But what about my sons, my young boys, my little sons?
There, in this burning house, they play, sport, and amuse themselves with all sorts of games. They do not know that this dwelling is afire, they do not understand it, do not perceive it, pay no attention to it, and so they feel no agitation. Though threatened by this great [fire], though in such close contact with so much ill, they pay no attention to their danger, and make no efforts to get out.” ‘
from The Saddharmapundarika,
in Buddhist Scriptures, Edward Conze, ed.
(Penguin Books, 1959)
One of the reasons it’s so interesting to write for Parade magazine is feedback. With eighty million readers you can really sample the opinion of the citizens of the United States. You can understand how people think, what their anxieties and hopes are, and even perhaps where we have lost our way.
An abbreviated version of the preceding chapter, emphasizing the performance of students and teachers, was published in Parade. I was flooded with mail. Some people denied there was a problem; others said that Americans were losing cutting-edge intelligence and know-how. Some thought there were easy solutions; others, that the problems were too deeply ingrained to fix. Many opinions were a surprise to me.
A tenth-grade teacher in Minnesota handed out copies of the article and asked his students to tell me what they thought. Here’s what some American high school students wrote (spelling, grammar and punctuation as in the original letters):
• Not a Americans are stupid We just rank lower in school big deal.
• Maybe that’s good that we are not as smart as the other countries. So then we can just import all of our products and then we don’t have to spend all of our money on the parts for the goods.
• And if other countries are doing better, what does it matter, their most likely going to come over the U.S. anyway?
• Our society is doing just fine with what discoveries we are making. It’s going slowly, but the cure for cancer is coming right along.
• The U.S. has its own learning system and it may not be as advanced as theirs, but it is just as good. Otherwise I think your article is a very educating one.
• Not one kid in this school likes science. I really didn’t understand the point of the article. I thought that it was very boring. I’m just not into anything like that.
• I am studying to be a lawyer and frankly I do agree with my parents when they say I have an attitude problem toward science.
• It’s true that some American kids don’t try, but we could be smarter than any other country if we wanted to.
• Instead of homework, kids will watch TV. I have to agree that I do it. I have cut it down from about 4 hrs. a day.
• I don’t believe it is the school systems fault, I think the whole country is brought up with not enough emphasis on school. I know my mom would rather be watching me play basketball or soccer, instead of helping me with an assignment. Most of the kids I know could care less about making sure there doing there work right.
• I don’t think American kids are stupid. It just they don’t study hard enough because most of kids work . . . Lots of people said that Asian people are smarter than American and they are good at everything, but that’s not true. They are not good at sports. They don’t have time to play sports.
• I’m in sports myself, and I feel that the other kids on my team push to you to excel more in that sport than in school.
• If we want to rank first, we could go to school all day and not have any social life.
• I can see why a lot of science teachers would get mad at you for insulting there job.
• Maybe if the teachers could be more exciting, the children will want to learn … If science is made to be fun, kids will want to learn. To accomplish this, it needs to be started early on, not just taught as facts and figures.