Alan Alda

Source

Worst case scenario: more marketing of science. Science marketing is a nasty thing.

Best case scenario: a revolution in the understanding of what science is, and why it matters.

I’m hoping his comments in this interview and the direction the scientific community takes in the future have more to do with the latter.

Since Science is NOT an “art”, the first is the only realistic option. I would have no objection to scientists getting a grip on reality and society, but as far as making science even more artsy-fartsy than it has become, naaaaaa… too much of that already.

I think you don’t understand what art is. Hardly your fault though - it’s a societal problem.

And what gives you even the tiniest confidence that you would know anything about what I know of art?

Because you said science isn’t an art, for one thing.

Well, being very familiar with both, I would have to guess that you must know too little of science. But perhaps I’m wrong. Maybe it’s art you know too little about. Perhaps both.

One could say that the person who answered his question About flame failed as a Communicator and Communication is partly art and science is partly Communication. In this instance it was Communication between an expert and a lay person. I would Think, also, that scientists could use some brushing up on philosophy, like the philosophy of language. Too often, it seems to me, they Think that Words contain truths, hence ‘oxidation’, here, being the best Word, the scientist has given the best/only answer. Which is a conclusion based on a lot of assumptions about what language is and what Communication is that are problematic.

I think the situation is to not be artistic in language but, to increase understanding and interest in science.
Try describing flame in words that a 5th grade student can grasp, an average child. I can’t.

The US Army during the 70’s required that all manuals be written for a 3rd grader.
I think they were onto something.

Many people don’t seem to understand what you’re saying about language. There are many correct scientific (and non-scientific of course, but that goes without saying) answers to “what is a flame?”. If “oxidation” is the only answer a scientist can muster, then his or her understanding is demonstrably very weak. Science involves the understanding and imparting of meaningful, useful, and correct information about our shared, physical world. The failure to do that well is a sign of decadent science - just as so much art these days is also decadent.

Yes, it’s actually to be clear in language. And not only is increased understanding for the lay person important for us as a society, but an inability to speak about something like a flame in more than one way demonstrates a lack of understanding in the first place. It’s called “rote knowledge”. Simple robots are capable of that.

That’s an art. Using language in general is an art. Some people can draw stick figures with Words. Some can make huge fascinating paintings. Some can speak or write in ways that most people can understand because they are creative with Words.

In the case of a candle, you are burning wax. Wax is made out of carbon. Oxygen in the air interacts with carbon to form CO2. The same CO2 in your soda. Carbon plus Oxygen equal carbon dioxide, CO2. Heat and light are “waste” products of this reaction. Like when you sweat if you are moving heavy objects.

IN the sweat example, the use of the muscles raises your body temperature which the body then tries to compensate for by sweating hopefully lowering the tempurature again. In the Candle example the causal line seems a bit different. (note, I understand you were giving a short answer. I am not demonstrating you are wrong or even a poor artist with Words, just pressing for clarification)

You are 11. Don’t overthink it. When you do work, it can have byproducts. When you are moving something heavy you move the heavy thing (which is the point) and you also produce sweat. You don’t actively set out to produce sweat. There are reasons why you sweat, but going into that is way above what an 11 year old needs to know about. I could go into a simplified version of electron orbitals without too much difficulty (just use the Bohr model) but that’s way beyond an explanation of “fire”. You know?

I see the difference as having bothered me as an 11 year old. With a candle you need what you are calling a waste product to get the candle going. YOu need a flame to get a flame [regarding the flame on the Candle]. With me lifting heavy stuff, you do not have to sprinkle a little sweat on me to get me sweating. Some kids are going to notice that difference, that’s all. As I said my response was not a critique, I just wanted to clarify in an area I think one would likely be asked to clarify.

Yes you are right.
I do think though anon has a valid point about rote knowledge.

Wenren stepping up to the plate. Awesome.

Sure, and in the case of that line of questioning I think the Bohr model works great. In that case images work better than speech (or writing). Still effective communication, just of a different type. Draw a few extra orbitals and show what is going on. As to the self-sustaining nature of it, I think most 11 year olds have played games descended from Tetris (like CandyCrush!) which can be a useful examples of “chain reactions” that the modern generation will understand far better than any other.

Please, please–my 11yr. old mind can’t keep up with the changes going on in this thread. Please tell me what you’re talking about. Are you talking about Alan Alda’s former science teacher who didn’t have any way of giving him an answer to his question, “What is flame?” because she really didn’t know, herself; is it about the need for scientists (and teachers) to be able to communicate clearly with non-scientists–to teach rather than to lecture; is it about whether the effective use of language is an art or a science? I can’t figure out where the thread is going!

Alan Alda is a well trained actor with a far-reaching mind. He uses language as an art in both his work as an actor and his work as a writer. He’s very skilled in what he does. He communicates well. He improvises well. He seems to want everyone to be able to do the same, so he started a center for teaching effective communication. He’s directed the teaching toward ‘scientists’ because of his elementary school experiences with, and his interest in, science. So, okay.

Is that an attempt to make science ‘artsy fartsy’ or is it an attempt to make science understandable to the people who, as adults, give grant money to underwrite scientific research? Isn’t the basic question this: “Is the effective use of language an art, a science, or both?”

Once that question is answered, we can go on to ask, “Is the effective use of language dependent on effective listening?” (Am I trying to railroad the thread?)

Enjoy! :smiley: