"The Popularization of Science"

by Mark Stewart

We live in an era of the popularization of science. Science is no longer an "ivory tower" subject, taught and practiced
only in universities. Today, science has a profound bearing on many aspects of our daily lives. There is therefore
nothing inappropriate or wrong about the popularization of science. Indeed, it is of paramount importance that the
layperson should comprehend the basic philosophies, methods, and concepts of science, simply because science
increasingly affects his or her everyday life. The threat of nuclear warfare hangs as a dark cloud above the head of
everyone and medical advances and computers affect our private and personal lives. Whether it be the fact that often
our very employment depends upon the viability and success of advanced technology or the ideologies of science
which permeate society and influence the way we think; from whatever direction you approach this subject, science and
its applications profoundly affect the ordinary man or woman. It is therefore quite right that science should be
popularized in the sense that scientific ideas, theories and knowledge should be taught in a simplified fashion so that
ordinary people can understand and grasp them.
However, in any popularization of science there lies a danger. There are many dangers in fact, and it is an area which
has to be approached with great care. The dangers of the popularization of science show up best in phrases such as
"Science has shown.." or "Scientists believe..." or "Scientists have proved..." Whenever these phrases are heard or
read I am immediately on the defensive, because I am reasonably sure that they will preface some statement which may
be distorted or I may find unacceptable. Such expressions often constitute a kind of mental processing, calculated to
improve the acceptability of some idea which is not sound. They are used as a kind of insurance against any criticism of
what is about to be said. If you can introduce a remark with "Science has shown..." or "Scientists believe..." then it
appears that you can say almost anything and get away with it!
The problem with the popularization of science is that things get simplified to such a level that they become untrue. Yet
such over simplications are often put across to the man in the street as established facts without qualification. A theory
may be advanced by a scientist, who then in the technical terms and "small print" adds, "This theory depends upon this
assumption and that assumption, and it will have to await this further result before we can be sure of it..." etc. These
qualifications, however, are swept away in popularization. The main idea comes through, but all the provisos that the
careful scientist may have erected, like a fence, around his idea are swept away and forgotten, and false ideas become
current.
There can also arise more tragic and subtle results from the popularization of science. It sometimes becomes possible
for unscrupulous people to manipulate the minds of others by playing upon unbalanced, false or one-sided scientific
principles (so-called) to justify political, cultural, or racial abuses. It is quite appropriate therefore that even if we are not
practicing scientists we should consider the subject of scientific theory. We should at least put ourselves in the position
where we can examine a statement made in the name of science, or a theory advanced in the name of science, and
apply some critical faculty to it. We must be critical in the constructive sense, of course, but not necessarily accept as
true everything we are told in the name of science.
In my next article I want to look first of all at the nature of scientific theory, its uses, and its abuses. Finally, because of
the great importance and topical interest of matters concerned with this subject matter, I want to apply some of the
ideas we develop to Ghost theory.