Where did my Sci-Comm values come from?

A few months ago, I read and enjoyed Sam Kean’s The Tale of the Duelling Neurosurgeons. Thanks to that book, I figured out something interesting about how I understand sci-comm.

The principles I believe in when it comes to science and sci-comm, and the threads which run through both my psychological and scientific interests, weren’t created through my science or psychology education.

1) Cross-disciplinary connections – Science doesn’t work in a vacuum but is informed by art, humanities, politics, and religion.
2) Human history – Rather than being detached thinking agents, scientists are as human, flawed and biased as anyone else.
3) Accidents, serendipity and luck – “Failed” inventions, wrong beliefs and faulty discoveries can be as valuable, informative and powerful as “successful” history.

These ideas weren’t part of my psychology degree, nor my science lessons. Instead, they came from GCSE History, a subject I took 10 years ago. So what was special about this course?

Our syllabus covered three areas over the two years, but what I learnt came from the first topic, Medicine Through Time. We studied how various themes such as war, religion, and chance affected medical discoveries from medieval England through to the Second World War. As a result, we had plenty of opportunities to connect what we were hearing about with topics mentioned in other lessons.. Our teacher knew that including gory stories and tales of what went wrong would hold our attention, so he didn’t shy away from it. We learnt about how many people could have discovered penicillin before Fleming eventually worked it out, about the operation with a 300% mortality rate, and many other surprising and counter-intuitive pieces of trivia.

The stories involved may have been sensationalised at times. As it was a GCSE course, many were probably simplified too. But that course provided a far better education than most of my other subjects. In hindsight, that Medicine through Time module was as important as psychology or science for me; it was just as strong of a foundation for my interest in sci-comm.

To me, this experience is a good example of why science communication is not the same thing as science teaching. Science communication goes beyond knowing science facts, inventions, or names and dates. It’s instead about knowing the principles behind exploring the world and finding knowledge, being aware that science is a sprawling, complex field that builds on itself over time, and understanding that the process of science is never finished but always moving towards better answers.

Humanities subjects, especially History, can show this kind of complexity over time very well. But many people paint a picture of sciences and humanities belonging to competing paths, forcing a divide between them. Personally, I don’t agree with that division, but I am interested in how it came about and in what factors caused people to maintain the division.

My next post will be looking at this question: when and why did the science vs humanities polarization begin?

4 thoughts on “Where did my Sci-Comm values come from?

  1. I love your blog/site. i don’t have a background in science, but I have a question: did you see the doc Everything and Nothing? I’m trying to get an answer to this: doesn’t dirac’s theory about matter/antimatter existing in the vacuum reinforce aristotle’s original theory that nature abhors a vacuum? when we talk about “the vacuum,” we really aren’t talking about “nothing,” right?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Hi :) I haven’t seen Everything and Nothing, sorry, but that was a curiosity-inducing question so now I’m interested.

      My (very limited) understanding is that Aristotle was practically against the idea of a vacuum exisiting because logically the surrounding “something” would be denser than the “nothing” and so would fill any available space. Philosophically, he was against the idea as the “nothing” can’t be observed or falsified- it’s questionable whether a “nothing” can actually exist by any way of testing existence. Does this fit with how the doc explained Aristotle’s perspective?

      For Dirac’s theory- to me that makes sense. Understanding a vacuum not as a “nothing” but instead as a “neutral” space between positive and negative forces cancelling each other out seems more logical.

      But whether that reinforces Aristotle, I don’t know. Aristotle (and pretty much everyone else) relied on the existence of aether to fill many of the gaps in their theories, which doesn’t hold up now, while Dirac’s theory was developed after the idea of aether was rejected. So to me that seems like Dirac’s theory probably wan’t intended to support or reinforce Aristotle’s beliefs, but to replace them with a post-aether set of ideas.

      I don’t know if that useful to you at all- either way, I really appreciate the comment :)


  2. thanks for replying. i thought it was a great doc, but i sort of feel like i need to see it again now!! it seems to me that the narrator was explicitly equating a vacuum with nothing throughout the film, and at one point in relating the history stated that aristotle’s theory was disproven, but never mentioned aristotle again when i was expecting him to. so sorry for the clunky thinking here. It seems to me that your description of a “neutral space between pos and neg forces canceling each other out” is not nothing, yet the narrator seemed to be suggesting that it IS nothing. My brain hurts!! :) thanks again for your great posts — love your site.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.