“Science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking. I have a foreboding of an America in my children’s or grandchildren’s time—when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what’s true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness.” – Carl Sagan from his 1995 book The Demon Haunted World.
This prescient quote links together two of the largest challenges in teaching science today. How to build a strong conceptual background before making the leap into the abstract, and how to maintain that know-how long term. The argument Sagan made, and which I agree, the transition from industrial to service economy has made both tasks significantly more difficult.
My goal is not to romanticize the old industrial economy. Most of those jobs were physically demanding and often resulted in long term health issues, injury, and at times, fatalities. However, the preparation and performance of those jobs provided a better sense of the physical world for those who dropped out of high school to work than many college graduates have today. I grew up in that world, but have lived my working life in post-industrial America.
Jean Piaget’s theory postulates that a student develops abstract thinking skills around the ages of 14-16. The work of Robert Karplus discovered for physics, the ability to solve abstract problems is often delayed into adulthood. To solve abstract physics problems, one must obtain a good conceptual understanding first so vectors do not appear like random arrows. When I was in grade school, we were trained to work in the old industrial economy. This meant grounding in metal shop, electrical systems, and industrial processes such as steel making.
What this meant was by early high school, I was knowledgeable in the laws of force, material science, and chemical processes used in industry. That put one on firm footing to take on abstract chemistry and physics courses in the final two years of high school.
However, even if one did not take those courses, they often entered jobs requiring a solid grounding in the physical sciences. My father dropped out after two years of high school to work. A career in fabricating and repairing industrial air compressors required knowledge in fluid dynamics, electrical systems, motors, and force. And this leads to the second problem confronting science educators, how is it possible to retain this knowledge if the current economy does not require it to work?
There are a lot of self styled education gurus who claim to have the solution for this, but the reality is adults retain knowledge they have to actively use. It really does not matter what type of educational process was taught beforehand. For starters, students respond differently to various educational methods. I prefer the Richard Feynman technique of utilizing various methods within a course to cast as wide a net as possible around the class. That said, retention depends on a use it or lose it principle.
Today’s workplace, more often than not, involves the use of computers rather than pulleys. There certainly is physics at play here but remains mostly hidden behind the keyboard. An analogy I think is most people understand the physics of a hot air balloon, but not a modern jet airplane. The electronics and quantum physics behind the computing revolution remains a mystery to most of its users. And when the science becomes a mystery, as Sagan noted, people rely on other methods to interpret the world around them.
I spent a good chunk of my career in financial services. In processing foreign exchange trades or mortgage closings, none of those duties required an understanding of the physical world around me unlike work in manufacturing. I continued my education during those years in physics and space science, but had I not, my education would have faded away and been replaced with God only knows. Education is only the first step in the process of understanding nature. I’ve know people who went to schools I would have given a limb to attend take a deep dive into the world of conspiracy theories afterwards.
It’s anecdotal, but I’ve found people beyond their formal education tend to adopt views to position them well in their social circle. This is tied to one’s ability to acquire jobs and wealth especially in economically depressed regions such as Upstate New York. And it’s a luxury working in the service sector provides as there is no price to pay for this behavior. However, in manufacturing, ignoring the laws of nature can literally cost your life. The recent development of anti-vaxxers dying from Covid may change this equation but we’ll have to wait and see. This will most likely impact the thinking of the younger generation than my own.
So, what’s the solution?
There are no silver bullets. It requires a variety of efforts and a trial and error approach. On the education front, emphasis towards conceptual chemistry and physics can help. Too many students take their first crack at these subjects in advanced courses requiring abstract thinking skills not yet developed. A conceptual approach makes sciences more accessible. We should not throw students out the science airlock if they have difficulty with abstract topics such as vectors first time at bat. This only breeds distrust of science and those who work/teach in the field.
What about after a person leaves school?
As previously noted, adults tend to retain knowledge to earn a paycheck. In the service economy, often this does not include science. This leaves people vulnerable to cranks and charlatans Carl Sagan mentions in his quote. Science based outcomes have to be made more socially popular. That’s an infamita for those of us trained in the scientific method. I have no desire to be cool or popular for the masses as science is about facts verified with experiment and data. One’s popularity should have no bearing on a scientific result. Yet, the reality is charlatans now possess an impressive infrastructure to transmit bad faith ideas in social media and those of us in science need to combat that.
A thing to avoid is nostalgia for the industrial economy. As the old saying goes, nostalgia is a liar. Endeavoring to bring back the economy of the 1950’s is akin to putting Humpty Dumpty back together again. It’s not happening and we need to look forward, and not idealize the past.
Myself, having an interest in astronomy was not a popular thing in the old working class culture. Often it earned you a side-eye, and at times, a slew of obscenities from those frustrated with their lot in life (my father was not one of them). Aspiring to college was not the way to earn social points. Yet, for all that, those blue collar guys required an understanding of nature to survive, and ironically, had more in common with Carl Sagan than many would have cared to admit.
* Image on top – proverbial tin foil hat. Credit: Wikipedia.