"Most of the people I know do have some knowledge of science, but they wouldn't think of wanting to become a scientist as a profession or as a hobby, or even sitting down and reading a scientific article. So with the title of this thread, what is the objective? To intrest more people in careers in science? To incourage more hobbiests? To incourage more readers? To incourage people to abandon religion and adopt one of many changing scientific views on the universe? I will settle for just interesting people in science and being open minded."
I didn't start the thread, so I don't know what the objective is. I have a tendency to digress and it could be I have hijacked the thread to beat the dead horse I'm riding.
But maybe not. The question was "have scientists failed humanity." It's a provocative statement, but I'll take it at face value. Science has done a great deal for humanity - and could do more. There are some areas that need work - and some that need a lot of work.
There are some areas where scientists are failing, but it's not clear that it's entirely their fault. But I'm not really interested in ascribing fault. For now I'm content to try to define the problem better.
If I agree that scientists in some sense have failed humanity, I mean this in a different sense than the OP. If I understand correctly, he is lamenting the fact that science hasn't been emotionally or spiritually fulfilling to people.
I think that's true, but I don't think it's a failure of scientists. It isn't the purpose of science to give people purpose in their lives. Science describes the physical world and provides us with clues to how we might make use of these descriptions to change our environment favorably.
It doesn't tell us how we ought to behave or what we should value. It can give us insights, but not answers. Wrong tool for the job. Jackhammers are great tools, but they're not useful for performing surgery. Neither is a scalpel of much use for knocking out concrete.
Science doesn't say "this is all there is." It says, "This is all I'm able to tell you." Some people feel that is not enough. First, some religious types feel threatened by science. They want to believe - and they want potential acolytes to believe - that their religious beliefs deserve to be held in the same position in society as scientifically derived beliefs. They want the prestige, but they don't want to play by the rules. Second, people often have a deep desire to invent answers in situations where there aren't any to be had. Some are like children who just can't take "I don't know" for an answer.
In any event, these fellows, just as the OP, feel that science is inherently unfulfilling because it doesn't give them the answers they're looking for.
But the sense in which I mean it is this:
Life is pretty easy for us moderns living in the first world. We have luxuries that most people in the world can't even imagine - and I'm not talking about television sets and walkmen. I'm talking about choices. We can actually DECIDE our careers - how we want to make money and get along in the world. And a lot of us -- to many of us -- are doing things that look like fun - and are a lot easier and often more profitable than a career in science. It's ironic that the scientific and technological penchant that produced this environment has, in so doing, created the means and the will among people to prefer study in other areas - which, if it continues, could be the start of an extended period of technological decline for us. (not decline in the sense that we are forgetting stuff, but in the sense that we are developing at a slower pace.) The economies of the first world countries depends on technological expertise.
To answer your last questions, yes.
1. I think the government and industry needs to step in an encourage young citizens to take up technical careers.
2. I also think that encouraging hobbyists is a good thing. Amateurs have made phenomenal contributions to science over the centuries.
3. Okay, in my heart of hearts, I kinda want people to abandon religion. But I don't think that's actually necessary - and maybe not even desirable. But we can't go around giving out the label of "science" to every idea just because a lot of people believe it. I'm all in favor of some kind of compromise, but it shouldn't involve changing the definition of science.
A MASSIVE part of the problem is that children are raised in such a way as to believe that they JUST HAVE TO KNOW certain things and BELIEVE certain things. The scientist is limited in this case. It's not very scientific to just make up any old explanation, so he resorts to "I don't know."
But these adults hearing that answer were brainwashed from very early ages that they have to have a purpose in life and they have to know it. They're emotionally incapabler of admitting they don't know some things for certain.
4. I think it's great to interest people in science. It's an admirable thing, it's doable, it's practical, it's economical - you don't have to have a committee figure it out, you just jump right in and do it. It's sufficient for you to do this, if that is your community service. But it's not sufficient for society or humanity. Human societies that have any hope of maintaining their current standards need to accept the responsibility to educate their citizens in the methods and results of science. To some extent this has happened. The school boards I know about have pretty high standards for science education in their districts. Looks good on paper anyway - and in fact is reasonably good in practice.
In reality, we have places like KS, though, where the most intellectually lazy people get to decide the science curriculum for everyone else. And we have declining interest in the sciences among the youth. (And as I said in the previous post, we're not the only ones suffering through this.)
