"John Wilkins" <johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
news:1gkrglb.1dvfyugzata4rN%johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au...

Milan <mtklima@yahoo.com> wrote:

"Louis" <thethinker111@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:761bf1a.0409260730.54e18dc3@posting.google.com...

I had my attention drawn to this blog by the Public Understanding of
Science list serv people. I thought I'd share. My immediate reactions
was simply "WOW". Then I became slightly annoyed, vitriolic and
argumentative missives are being completed.

http://www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/blog/archives/000166.php

In a similar vein another article shocked me to the core.

http://education.independent.co.uk/higher/story.jsp?story=548112

Obviously, as a chemist, I have a vested interest. Even if I didn't
the shockingly poor arguments and reasoning are abhorrent enough.

Isn't it enough that we have ridiculous postmodernists, new age
believers of any old bollocks, arm chair critics ignorant of even the
simplest science yet violently opposed to it, the frothing end of the
god-botherer spectrum, and now loony "social scientists" shouting
their mouths off. Were I a rabid christian I would have developed a
really unhealthy persecution complex....

Any comments on the articles?

Louis

I think that there are two issues here. The first one is why the
sciences are not appealing *academically*. I think that the reasons
were very nicely explained by Colin Tudge, in an article in the
Guardian, a few years ago (I kept the clip and I have it somewhere).
Tudge contended that while the humanities were presented and taught as
an ambitious and seductive intellectual pursuit, the sciences were
taught as a collection of facts and techniques. This put off the
intellectually curious students, who tended to gravitate towards the
humanities. I think Tudge has a very good point. However, in practical
terms I wonder for how long can you sell the view of science as an
attractive intellectual endeavour before you have to get down to the
facts and techniques.

The other issue is economic. There is little financial incentive to do
science. Science is hard work and badly paid. If you are a lecturer in
the sciences you bust your ***** for 25 grand, trying to get grants and
produce papers. Many people subsist on soft money for years until they
get a position, which is not well paid anyway. If you look at the
pharmaceutical industry, those in the sales and managerial departments
earn much more than the researchers.

When I was doing my PhD in Cambridge, I used to spend the bloody day
pipetting away in the lab. My friends in the humanities were back in
the combination room having a nice chat at 5 pm.

regards
Milan

When I started my job (nonacademic) at a medical research institute (The
Walter and Eliza Hall Institute, AKA WEHI), I thought I should go to a
seminar to see what these odd folk did all day. The talk was on tracing
the functionality - at least some of it - of a kinase, as I recall. It
was absolutely riveting, as the researcher took the audience with him
through a deduction that makes Holmes look like an amateur. It was the
best case of puzzle-solving I have ever seen. He hypothesised, tested,
failed, ruled in or out, and so on for months, in order to give that
talk. I was honoured to have heard it.

Maybe you become desensitized to this kind of things, maybe the grass is
greener on the other side, maybe you were lucky to be at this outstanding
talk. All I can say is I did research for 10 years, went to uncountable
talks, seminars, conferences and meetings. And the only talk that stands out
in my memory is one given by a guy who was wearing this sweater that he had
made himself; he had knitted the graphs with the main results of his work on
his sweater. One on the front and one on the back. I dont remember what the
work was about, but I remember the funky sweater.

"John Harshman" <jharshman.diespamdie@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:41573823.6090805@pacbell.net...

Milan wrote:

"Louis" <thethinker111@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:761bf1a.0409260730.54e18dc3@posting.google.com...

I had my attention drawn to this blog by the Public Understanding of
Science list serv people. I thought I'd share. My immediate reactions
was simply "WOW". Then I became slightly annoyed, vitriolic and
argumentative missives are being completed.

http://www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/blog/archives/000166.php

In a similar vein another article shocked me to the core.

http://education.independent.co.uk/higher/story.jsp?story=548112

Obviously, as a chemist, I have a vested interest. Even if I didn't
the shockingly poor arguments and reasoning are abhorrent enough.

Isn't it enough that we have ridiculous postmodernists, new age
believers of any old bollocks, arm chair critics ignorant of even the
simplest science yet violently opposed to it, the frothing end of the
god-botherer spectrum, and now loony "social scientists" shouting
their mouths off. Were I a rabid christian I would have developed a
really unhealthy persecution complex....

Any comments on the articles?

Louis

I think that there are two issues here. The first one is why the

sciences

are not appealing *academically*. I think that the reasons were very

nicely

explained by Colin Tudge, in an article in the Guardian, a few years ago

(I

kept the clip and I have it somewhere). Tudge contended that while the
humanities were presented and taught as an ambitious and seductive
intellectual pursuit, the sciences were taught as a collection of facts

and

techniques. This put off the intellectually curious students, who tended

to

gravitate towards the humanities. I think Tudge has a very good point.
However, in practical terms I wonder for how long can you sell the view

of

science as an attractive intellectual endeavour before you have to get

down

to the facts and techniques.

The other issue is economic. There is little financial incentive to do
science. Science is hard work and badly paid. If you are a lecturer in

the

sciences you bust your ***** for 25 grand, trying to get grants and

produce

papers. Many people subsist on soft money for years until they get a
position, which is not well paid anyway. If you look at the

pharmaceutical

industry, those in the sales and managerial departments earn much more

than

the researchers.

When I was doing my PhD in Cambridge, I used to spend the bloody day
pipetting away in the lab. My friends in the humanities were back in the
combination room having a nice chat at 5 pm.

We may have later nice chats, but we have better nice chats. And lab
work can even be fun in a mindless sort of way. Let's face it, we're in
science because it's more fun than anything else, so much more that it's
worth the lousy pay and other annoyances.

Research can be fun -sometimes. Most of the time it is dull and repetitive.

And most people in science are pedestrian bores with whom it is almost
impossible to have an interesting conversation. The lack of culture in
scientific environments is the worst problem; much worse than the lousy pay
or any other annoyance. Most of my friends were and are in philosophy,
history, literature and political sciences. Much more interesting, fun
people. If it had not been for the college, where I managed to socialize
with people from outside the scientific domain I would have died of acute
boredom.

Harlequin wrote:

"R. Baldwin" <res0k7yx@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote in
news:VKB5d.2174$2t5.1408@trnddc07:

I would observe that young children actually love science, but that
teachers in the younger grades generally don't feel competent to teach
it. If we could change that we would probably have students demanding
more science as they grow older.

Humans are naturally interested in everything around them. If you
place an object in front of a person, he/she will probably pick it up
and examine it--but it is possible to make any subject dull.

Yeah, many teachers and the rest of the education system often seem
to do their best to make science dull. But then again,
they often seem to do their best to make almost anything
dull.

That's why we need more chem teachers willing to blow things up. I
can't speak for girls, but nothing makes a boy stand up and pay
attention to science like a good explosion.

Harlequin wrote:

"R. Baldwin" <res0k7yx@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote in
news:VKB5d.2174$2t5.1408@trnddc07:

I would observe that young children actually love science, but that
teachers in the younger grades generally don't feel competent to teach
it. If we could change that we would probably have students demanding
more science as they grow older.

Humans are naturally interested in everything around them. If you
place an object in front of a person, he/she will probably pick it up
and examine it--but it is possible to make any subject dull.

Yeah, many teachers and the rest of the education system often seem
to do their best to make science dull. But then again,
they often seem to do their best to make almost anything
dull.

That's why we need more chem teachers willing to blow things up. I
can't speak for girls, but nothing makes a boy stand up and pay
attention to science like a good explosion.