While listening to the always brilliant Hello Internet podcast, I stumbled upon a shocking question: am I deceiving you, my beloved reader, when I try to present science as something exciting?
In extreme synthesis, CGP Grey’s synthesis says that we usually try to engage people in science by using flashy demonstrations. But this way, he says, we’re hiding how formidably hard the actual study of science is. Physics for example is much less cool little experiments than it is a ton of math.
Flashy demonstrations would deceive people by promising fun and games, then delivering piles of books and blackboards of equations.
To respect Grey (who’s very smart, thoughtful, and studied physics so he knows what he’s talking about) I avoided my knee-jerk reaction and actually mulled over this, talking to friends and colleagues. Undoubtedly, whatever the science, research is often plain boring.
But if we only showed this part, nobody in their right mind would go study science. Enticing demonstrations are… well… enticing. The problem is the goal: what does the audience take home? Did they learn anything? Did it stimulate their curiosity? Or did they see a magic show where the magician was wearing a lab coat instead of a tux?
Don’t get me wrong: I love magic! But that approach hardly pushes anyone into science. On that Grey has a point.
What he might be leaving aside is the value of flashy demonstrations as packaging for actual science content. As Mark Rober put it, approach science using the velociraptor hunting tactics: the catchy experiment attracts attention, then… when you least expect it… SCIENCE!!
If exciting experiments stimulate curiosity they are not a lie. That is, in fact, exactly what being a scientist is about. Books, formulas, and sample numbering are not the end: they are the means to answer questions, tools to find out what’s what. Which is the real goal of science.
If you want more
- The starting point is the discussion in this episode of Hello Internet, at minutes 23:30-25:57.
PhysicalLove 