NYT
June 1, 2008
Op-Ed Contributor
Put a Little Science in Your Life
By BRIAN GREENE

A COUPLE of years ago I received a letter from an American soldier in
Iraq. The letter began by saying that, as we’ve all become painfully
aware, serving on the front lines is physically exhausting and
emotionally debilitating. But the reason for his writing was to tell
me that in that hostile and lonely environment, a book I’d written had
become a kind of lifeline. As the book is about science — one that
traces physicists’ search for nature’s deepest laws — the soldier’s
letter might strike you as, well, odd.

But it’s not. Rather, it speaks to the powerful role science can play
in giving life context and meaning. At the same time, the soldier’s
letter emphasized something I’ve increasingly come to believe: our
educational system fails to teach science in a way that allows
students to integrate it into their lives.

Allow me a moment to explain.

When we consider the ubiquity of cellphones, iPods, personal computers
and the Internet, it’s easy to see how science (and the technology to
which it leads) is woven into the fabric of our day-to-day activities.
When we benefit from CT scanners, M.R.I. devices, pacemakers and
arterial stents, we can immediately appreciate how science affects the
quality of our lives. When we assess the state of the world, and
identify looming challenges like climate change, global pandemics,
security threats and diminishing resources, we don’t hesitate in
turning to science to gauge the problems and find solutions.

And when we look at the wealth of opportunities hovering on the
horizon — stem cells, genomic sequencing, personalized medicine,
longevity research, nanoscience, brain-machine interface, quantum
computers, space technology — we realize how crucial it is to
cultivate a general public that can engage with scientific issues;
there’s simply no other way that as a society we will be prepared to
make informed decisions on a range of issues that will shape the
future.

These are the standard — and enormously important — reasons many would
give in explaining why science matters.

But here’s the thing. The reason science really matters runs deeper
still. Science is a way of life. Science is a perspective. Science is
the process that takes us from confusion to understanding in a manner
that’s precise, predictive and reliable — a transformation, for those
lucky enough to experience it, that is empowering and emotional. To be
able to think through and grasp explanations — for everything from why
the sky is blue to how life formed on earth — not because they are
declared dogma but rather because they reveal patterns confirmed by
experiment and observation, is one of the most precious of human
experiences.

As a practicing scientist, I know this from my own work and study. But
I also know that you don’t have to be a scientist for science to be
transformative. I’ve seen children’s eyes light up as I’ve told them
about black holes and the Big Bang. I’ve spoken with high school
dropouts who’ve stumbled on popular science books about the human
genome project, and then returned to school with newfound purpose. And
in that letter from Iraq, the soldier told me how learning about
relativity and quantum physics in the dusty and dangerous environs of
greater Baghdad kept him going because it revealed a deeper reality of
which we’re all a part.

It’s striking that science is still widely viewed as merely a subject
one studies in the classroom or an isolated body of largely esoteric
knowledge that sometimes shows up in the “real” world in the form of
technological or medical advances. In reality, science is a language
of hope and inspiration, providing discoveries that fire the
imagination and instill a sense of connection to our lives and our
world.

If science isn’t your strong suit — and for many it’s not — this side
of science is something you may have rarely if ever experienced. I’ve
spoken with so many people over the years whose encounters with
science in school left them thinking of it as cold, distant and
intimidating. They happily use the innovations that science makes
possible, but feel that the science itself is just not relevant to
their lives. What a shame.

Like a life without music, art or literature, a life without science
is bereft of something that gives experience a rich and otherwise
inaccessible dimension.

It’s one thing to go outside on a crisp, clear night and marvel at a
sky full of stars. It’s another to marvel not only at the spectacle
but to recognize that those stars are the result of exceedingly
ordered conditions 13.7 billion years ago at the moment of the Big
Bang. It’s another still to understand how those stars act as nuclear
furnaces that supply the universe with carbon, oxygen and nitrogen,
the raw material of life as we know it.

And it’s yet another level of experience to realize that those stars
account for less than 4 percent of what’s out there — the rest being
of an unknown composition, so-called dark matter and energy, which
researchers are now vigorously trying to divine.

As every parent knows, children begin life as uninhibited, unabashed
explorers of the unknown. From the time we can walk and talk, we want
to know what things are and how they work — we begin life as little
scientists. But most of us quickly lose our intrinsic scientific
passion. And it’s a profound loss.

A great many studies have focused on this problem, identifying
important opportunities for improving science education.
Recommendations have ranged from increasing the level of training for
science teachers to curriculum reforms.

But most of these studies (and their suggestions) avoid an overarching
systemic issue: in teaching our students, we continually fail to
activate rich opportunities for revealing the breathtaking vistas
opened up by science, and instead focus on the need to gain competency
with science’s underlying technical details.

In fact, many students I’ve spoken to have little sense of the big
questions those technical details collectively try to answer: Where
did the universe come from? How did life originate? How does the brain
give rise to consciousness? Like a music curriculum that requires its
students to practice scales while rarely if ever inspiring them by
playing the great masterpieces, this way of teaching science squanders
the chance to make students sit up in their chairs and say, “Wow,
that’s science?”

In physics, just to give a sense of the raw material that’s available
to be leveraged, the most revolutionary of advances have happened in
the last 100 years — special relativity, general relativity, quantum
mechanics — a symphony of discoveries that changed our conception of
reality. More recently, the last 10 years have witnessed an upheaval
in our understanding of the universe’s composition, yielding a wholly
new prediction for what the cosmos will be like in the far future.

These are paradigm-shaking developments. But rare is the high school
class, and rarer still is the middle school class, in which these
breakthroughs are introduced. It’s much the same story in classes for
biology, chemistry and mathematics.

At the root of this pedagogical approach is a firm belief in the
vertical nature of science: you must master A before moving on to B.
When A happened a few hundred years ago, it’s a long climb to the
modern era. Certainly, when it comes to teaching the technicalities —
solving this equation, balancing that reaction, grasping the discrete
parts of the cell — the verticality of science is unassailable.

But science is so much more than its technical details. And with
careful attention to presentation, cutting-edge insights and
discoveries can be clearly and faithfully communicated to students
independent of those details; in fact, those insights and discoveries
are precisely the ones that can drive a young student to want to learn
the details. We rob science education of life when we focus solely on
results and seek to train students to solve problems and recite facts
without a commensurate emphasis on transporting them out beyond the
stars.

Science is the greatest of all adventure stories, one that’s been
unfolding for thousands of years as we have sought to understand
ourselves and our surroundings. Science needs to be taught to the
young and communicated to the mature in a manner that captures this
drama. We must embark on a cultural shift that places science in its
rightful place alongside music, art and literature as an indispensable
part of what makes life worth living.

It’s the birthright of every child, it’s a necessity for every adult,
to look out on the world, as the soldier in Iraq did, and see that the
wonder of the cosmos transcends everything that divides us.

Brian Greene, a professor of physics at Columbia, is the author of
“The Elegant Universe” and “The Fabric of the Cosmos.”

On Jun 1, 11:37 pm, Lance  wrote:

> But here’s the thing. The reason science really matters runs deeper
> still. Science is a way of life.

i don't know anyone who spends 24hrs a day 'doing science'. How can it
be a way of life? A major part of life, maybe. But not *a* way.

> Science is a perspective. Science is
> the process that takes us from confusion to understanding

... and back again :-) I'm thinking of QM (never mind string theory).

> In reality, science is a language
> of hope and inspiration

So the electron hopes to meet a proton so that they can become
inspired to form a hydrogen atom?

Vague flapdoodle, Brian.

> Like a life without music, art or literature, a life without science
> is bereft of something that gives experience a rich and otherwise
> inaccessible dimension.

Ah, so you admit science isn't a way of life, there are other things
as well...

On Jun 2, 3:17 pm, Paul Grieg  wrote:
> On Jun 1, 11:37 pm, Lance  wrote:
>
> > But here’s the thing. The reason science really matters runs deeper
> > still. Science is a way of life.
>
> i don't know anyone who spends 24hrs a day 'doing science'. How can it
> be a way of life? A major part of life, maybe. But not *a* way.
>
> > Science is a perspective. Science is
> > the process that takes us from confusion to understanding
>
> ... and back again :-) I'm thinking of QM (never mind string theory).
>
> > In reality, science is a language
> > of hope and inspiration
>
> So the electron hopes to meet a proton so that they can become
> inspired to form a hydrogen atom?
>
> Vague flapdoodle, Brian.
>
> > Like a life without music, art or literature, a life without science
> > is bereft of something that gives experience a rich and otherwise
> > inaccessible dimension.
>
> Ah, so you admit science isn't a way of life, there are other things
> as well...

I think Dawkins wrote a book making much the same point as brian
Greene does,

Lance

On Jun 2, 2:20 pm, Lance  wrote:
> On Jun 2, 3:17 pm, Paul Grieg  wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 1, 11:37 pm, Lance  wrote:
>
> > > But here’s the thing. The reason science really matters runs deeper
> > > still. Science is a way of life.
>
> > i don't know anyone who spends 24hrs a day 'doing science'. How can it
> > be a way of life? A major part of life, maybe. But not *a* way.
>
> > > Science is a perspective. Science is
> > > the process that takes us from confusion to understanding
>
> > ... and back again :-) I'm thinking of QM (never mind string theory).
>
> > > In reality, science is a language
> > > of hope and inspiration
>
> > So the electron hopes to meet a proton so that they can become
> > inspired to form a hydrogen atom?
>
> > Vague flapdoodle, Brian.
>
> > > Like a life without music, art or literature, a life without science
> > > is bereft of something that gives experience a rich and otherwise
> > > inaccessible dimension.
>
> > Ah, so you admit science isn't a way of life, there are other things
> > as well...
>
> I think Dawkins wrote a book making much the same point as brian
> Greene does,
>
> Lance

I doubt it. Can you point to a page where he says science is a way of
life, and contradicts himself a few paragraphs later?

The moral of this posting is that scientists shouldn't do Op Ed
pieces. They should write considered books.

I didn't get the impression that Brian's first book was as slapdash as
this little piece of nothing. In the time he spent writing this
rubbish he could have solved another equation (if his ability is as
good as his reputation).

So why wallow in the gutter press?

On Jun 2, 3:29 pm, Paul Grieg  wrote:
> On Jun 2, 2:20 pm, Lance  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 2, 3:17 pm, Paul Grieg  wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 1, 11:37 pm, Lance  wrote:
>
> > > > But here’s the thing. The reason science really matters runs deeper
> > > > still. Science is a way of life.
>
> > > i don't know anyone who spends 24hrs a day 'doing science'. How can it> > > be a way of life? A major part of life, maybe. But not *a* way.
>
> > > > Science is a perspective. Science is
> > > > the process that takes us from confusion to understanding
>
> > > ... and back again :-) I'm thinking of QM (never mind string theory).
>
> > > > In reality, science is a language
> > > > of hope and inspiration
>
> > > So the electron hopes to meet a proton so that they can become
> > > inspired to form a hydrogen atom?
>
> > > Vague flapdoodle, Brian.
>
> > > > Like a life without music, art or literature, a life without science> > > > is bereft of something that gives experience a rich and otherwise
> > > > inaccessible dimension.
>
> > > Ah, so you admit science isn't a way of life, there are other things
> > > as well...
>
> > I think Dawkins wrote a book making much the same point as brian
> > Greene does,
>
> > Lance
>
> I doubt it. Can you point to a page where he says science is a way of
> life, and contradicts himself a few paragraphs later?
>
> The moral of this posting is that scientists shouldn't do Op Ed
> pieces. They should write considered books.
>
> I didn't get the impression that Brian's first book was as slapdash as
> this little piece of nothing. In the time he spent writing this
> rubbish he could have solved another equation (if his ability is as
> good as his reputation).
>
> So why wallow in the gutter press?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I think you must know more about the gutter than I do.

Lance