Ag Terrane @agterrane@qoto.org

We need, in the words of Noah Feinstein, to make sure that everyone is at least a competent outsider to science: someone who has "learned to recognize the moments when science has some bearing on their needs and interests and to interact with sources of scientific expertise in ways that help them achieve their own goals." https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sce.20414

In a world of scientific misinformation that can lead to nationwide vaccine refusal, climate change denial, and any number of other problems, we need to do more than train a subset of the population for scientific careers. We need everyone in the country to be fluent in the sphere of science.

A big part of the problem is the aim of science education in the US. We are still operating in a post-Sputnik model, where the aim of science education is to create a cadre of insiders who can form the next scientific workforce upon which our economic, technological, and military strength relies.

While a few programs provide welcome exceptions, in general we don't teach any of this in the classroom.

To understand how they do this, people need to understand how science is structured. Who does it? Where, and paid by whom? What motivates them? What are their incentives and reward structures? What makes someone credible as a scientist? What constitutes expertise, and how is it acquired and demonstrated? What is the role of peer review in science? How does the scientific community deal with uncertainty and disagreement? What is scientific consensus? How is it formed? How can it be overturned?

But the reason that we should trust science over other forms of knowledge is not because someone follows a particular set of steps in the laboratory. It's because the social institutions of science have proven highly effective at developing (at a bare minimum) empirically adequate theories to the explain the world.

What we don't teach is how science functions as a social institution that allows tens or hundreds of thousands of individuals to work together collectively to undercover the workings of the physical universe. Everything we teach about the process of science involves that which one can do alone at night in an empty laboratory.

We teach how to execute the technical procedures used in science and technology: how do you sequence a genome, design a regression, or implement a random forest algorithm. We even teach some aspects of a so-called "scientific method"—making observations, forming hypotheses, designing experiments, testing against data, refining hypotheses, and back around again (3).

To dispell disinformation about science, we need to teach people why science is trustworthy. Right now, I think we're failing to do that in the K-12 classroom and even at the college level. We teach the settled facts of science: how does photosynthesis work, what is special relativity, what explains the often exquisite fit of organisms to their environments.

At an end, your rule is. And not short enough it was.