I had an impression that some earlier messages were assuming that
"fashionable" means "in fashion among university students", and limiting
"science" to professional scientists, academia and formal education.
I have a teenage daughter. She never ceases to tell me that I, and pretty
well everybody with whom I communicate and share common values, are
hopelessly out of touch.
She informs me that it isn't just the sheer embarassment of my taste in
shirts, ties and music: apparently, even my use of language exposes her
to the prospect of utter ridicule among her friends.
I don't think she'd even use the word "fashionable".
I've heard Asger Hoeg, from the science centre, Experimentarium, in
Copenhagen, say that an important aim in science communication is wider
acceptance that science is "cool".
I wondered what was the equivalent term for the opposite of "cool" so I
asked my daughter. "Sad", she said immediately.
So, there we have it, in a form which shouldn't embarrass my daughter:
"Is science cool or sad?"
But hang on, what do we mean by "science"? Is this just a sad PR job for
the science industry, or do we include what Frank Oppenheimer called
"the public understanding of nature"...
"Is it cool or sad to be interested in why things happen the way they do?"
Perhaps the answers we receive depend partly on our own unconscious
prejudices as well, since even the way we ask the question can project a
particular image of "science"!
¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤
Ian Russell :-)nteractive Science Ltd, UK Useful quote:
- "Facts do not speak." Jules Henri Poincaré 1854-1912
[log in to unmask] http://www.interactives.co.uk
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|