I was listening to the latest episode of The Skeptics Guide to the Universe podcast last night, and there was a discussion that was basically about whether it's worth trying to educate the public about science and trying to fight the seemingly endless influx of pseudo-science all around us. The discussion (started by this post) was mostly centred on "alternative medicine" claims (not surprising, since Steven Novella is a doctor); one of the pieces of information mentioned was that negative studies - that is, studies proving that a particular therapy does not work - have never convinced any "true believer" to abandon anything. But this applies to other areas as well; I mean, the fact that astrology has been repeatedly proven to be bunk has not caused it to be abandoned. This has many people in "our" camp feeling somewhat depressed at the apparent futility of trying to educate people who don't want to be educated.
This is an interesting problem. After all, why is it that we have so much trouble getting the general population to accept and believe in scientific information (properly researched and reviewed), while the purveyors of "alternative" information find such a receptive public? I don't have an answer to that; I wish I did. Part of it is probably the tendency of people not to trust information coming from those perceived to be in a position of authority; the "alternative" guys usually try to align themselves with "normal" people, which is why, for example, saying that a particular therapy was "invented by a school teacher" is seen as a good thing. This comes from a lack of understanding about how science operates and where scientific information comes from: ideas survive not based on the authority of their proponents, but on their merits - at least in the long term.
On a vaguely related note: not too long ago, I also read (or heard) a criticism by someone - sorry, I honestly can't remember who, when and where this was - saying that, despite the incredible number of scientific blogs available nowadays, there aren't many that act as "gentle introductions" to scientific subjects. To be fair, that's not entirely true - at least if you extend the word "blog" to also include podcasts. The Evolution 101 series was a great introduction to basic and advanced concepts about evolution and natural selection; Astronomy Cast is a great resource for astronomy-related concepts, as is Phil Plait's blog (especially the videos he publishes occasionally). And I'm sure there are others out there.
Still, this combination of factors is why I've decided to start writing regularly about the "basics of astronomy"; this will be my "astronomy 101" series. I realise that there may be a few of those around, on- and offline; still, I think I can add something to the "astrosphere", and this will have the added benefit of helping me focus on, and review, things I should - and probably do - already know; making me "structure" my knowledge better, in a way. Also, I have a feeling that scientific-literate people have some responsibility for putting information out there and for trying to get more people to our side.
The structure I'll follow will be loosely based on university-level introductory astronomy courses and on a few books (most prominently the famous Universe, by Freedman and Kaufmann); when relevant, I will mention bibliography or add links to more detailed material.
My intention is to post new material once a week; I originally planned on writing longer articles once a fortnight, but I guess shorter, more frequent ones will work out better. If not, I can always change the style; it's not like I on a contract, or anything...
I hope everything works out well and that someone out finds my texts interesting. The series starts later this week.
Articles already published:
- Astronomical Numbers (18/07/2008)
- Units of Measurement (25/07/2008)
- The Night Sky (02/08/2008)
- Spherical Earth (09/08/2008)
- The Size of the Earth (16/08/2008)
- Mapping Our World (23/08/2008)
- Mapping the Sky (30/08/2008)
- The Sky In Motion (1) (13/09/2008)
- The Sky In Motion (2) (25/11/2008)
Leave a comment