The following is a rough draft of my entry for Seed magazine’s 2007 Science Writing Contest. They posed the following questions:

What does it mean to be scientifically literate in the 21st century?

How do we measure the scientific literacy of a society? How do we boost it? What is the value of this literacy? Who is responsible for fostering it?



Confronted with the practical, everyday problems of life, we are all scientists. When a light bulb burns out, the first thing everyone does is flick the switch up and down a few times. This is testing the hypothesis that the bulb is actually burned out, and that there is not a poor connection in the wiring. This hypothesis is tested again when the bulb is replaced, and the switch flipped once more. This series of actions—eliminating potential causes, developing a hypothesis, testing it, and achieving a result—is done every day by every person. In the event we do not have enough knowledge to formulate and test our own hypotheses, we find experts who do: auto mechanics, doctors, or the kid down the street who fixes computers.

Despite this, some people decide that this thing which works so well in pedestrian situations is not to be trusted when it comes to the big questions of life, the universe, and everything else. We are all instinctive scientists in domains we understand. It is only when we move to the unknown that some people become suspicious of the methods which serve them so well the rest of the time, and invoke an altogether different type of rationalization.

It is easy to look at the world and feel that use of reason is declining. Fortunately, people are natural scientists. Increasing scientific literacy is a matter of pointing out to people what they already do on a regular basis, and encouraging them to use this process in all things. Indeed, the less one knows about a subject, the more important the scientific method becomes.

We need to avoid the knee-jerk reaction that is blaming the public school system. Science must be taught and the teaching can always improve, but the schools alone cannot be responsible for fostering this interest. Instead, we require a shift in the culture as a whole. The alternatives used in lieu of the scientific method—superstition and unquestioning belief—must be made unfashionable.

It may seem counterintuitive that in order make people more scientifically literate, we must appeal to their emotions. However, this is precisely what has worked in the past. Carl Sagan had the right idea. We need to get to the point where people no longer accept outlandish anecdotes as proof; where nothing extraordinary is taken at face value; and where every tall tale is questioned.

The good news is that this shift has already begun. Years ago, I would hear someone tell an urban legend to a group, and the entire group would be appropriately disgusted or touched—but no one would question its validity. Today, it is very unusual when somebody tells an urban legend and at least one person in the crowd doesn’t say, “Wasn’t that on MythBusters? I think they debunked it.” I know other people who will hold off judgement on a story until they’ve had a chance to look it up on Snopes.com. It is becoming unfashionable to make outrageous claims without having first checked the basic facts on the internet.

Still, we have quite a way to go. In many of these instances, we’re dealing with the concrete physical world. There are entire fields of science that are built on evidences rather than direct observation. Scientific literacy is invaluable here because it clarifies how a multitude of evidence is as good as direct observation. Something must not be seen for it to be known. The next step is to make it unfashionable for people to ignore the research that has been done.

Of course, people cannot be expected to go and learn on their own time. It is not in many peoples’ nature to do this, valuable as the rest of us find it. It becomes a matter of acknowledgment. Often people are so ignorant as to what has taken place in a given field of study, that they may not realize just how monumental the supporting evidence can be. One should be embarrassed if they ignore it. In this case, the scientifically literate will realize that the work has been done for them. Others in the world have done the research and looked at the evidence. This is not to say that one should believe whatever research the scientific community publishes without question—but then again, those who are scientifically literate know this is not what I mean. We must trust something. We can trust the scientific method.

In the broadest sense, it is the entire scientific community who is responsible for making this happen—but traditionally, scientists have not been known for their marketing skill. Again, one can hardly point the finger, but at the same time, the scientific community cannot wait for their Carl Sagans to step up. The most successful campaign will be driven at the grass roots level.

It is up to all of us with a naturally inquisitive mind to validate the scientific method to our peers. Those who distrust it will never be swayed by any amount of classroom education. On the contrary, this may serve to solidify their distrust. The schooling must happen, but it is in conversation among acquaintances where the culture begins to shift. It does not need to be condescending, and it will not be immediate. But with enough people stressing the importance of the scientific method, it will, in time, become the dominant mode of thought.

When people are embarrassed to admit they did not draw their conclusions via the scientific method: that is a scientifically literate culture.

-Ted