匿名使用者 發問時間: 社會與文化語言 · 2 0 年前


Whether we like it or not, the world we live in has changed a great deal in the last hundred years, and it is likely to change even more in the next hundred. Some people would like to stop these changes and go back to what they see as a purer and simpler age. But as history shows, the past was not that wonderful. It was not so bad for a privileged minority, though even they had to do without modern medicine, and childbirth was highly risky for women. But for the vast majority of the population, life was nasty and short.

Anyway, even if one wanted to, one couldn’t put the clock back to an earlier age, Knowledge and techniques can’t just be forgotten. Nor can one prevent further advances in the future. Even if all government money for research were cut off, the force of competition would still bring about advance in technology. Moreover, one cannot stop inquiring minds from thinking about basic science, whether or not they were paid for it.

If we accept that we cannot prevent science and technology from changing our world, we can at last try to ensure that the changes they make are in the right directions. In a democratic society, this means that the public needs to have a basic understanding of science, so that it can make informed decision and not leave them un the hands of experts. At the moment, the public has a rather ambivalent attitude toward sciences. It has come to expect the steady increase in the standard of living that new developments in science and technology have brought to continue, but it also distrusts science because it doesn’t understand it. This distrust is evident in the cartoon figure of the mad scientist working in laboratory to produce a Frankenstein. But the public also has a great interest in science, as is shown by the large audiences for science fiction.

What can be done to harness this interest and give the public the scientific background it needs to make informed decisions on subjects like acid rain, the greenhouse effect, unclear weapons, and genetic engineering? Clearly, the basic must lie in what is taught in school. But in schools is often presented in a dry and uninteresting manner. Children must learn it by rote to pass examination, and they don’t see its relevance to the world around them. Moreover, science is often taught in terms of equations are a concise and accurate way of describing mathematical ideas, they frighten most people.

Scientists and engineers tend to express their ideas in the form of equations because they need to know the precise value of quantities. But for the rest of us, a qualitative grasp of scientific concepts is sufficient. And this can be conveyed by words and diagrams, without the use of equations.

The science people learn in school can provide the basic framework. But the rate of scientific progress is now so rapid that there are always new development that have occurred since one was at school; or university. I never learned about molecular biology or transistors at school;, but genetic engineering and computers are two of the developments most likely to change the way we live in the future. Popular books and magazine articles about science can help to put across new developments, but even the most successful popular book is read by only a small proportion of the population. There are some very good science programs on TV, but others present scientific wonders simply as magic, without explaining them or showing how they fit into the framework of scientific ideas. Producers of television science programs should realize that they have a responsibility to educate the public, not just entertain it.

What are the science-related issues that the public will have to make decisions on in the near future? By far the most urgent is that of unclear weapons. Other global problems, such as food supply or the greenhouse effect, are relatively slow-acting, but nuclear war could mean the end of all human life on earth within days. The relaxation of East-West tensions has meant that the fear of nuclear war has receded from public consciousness. But the danger is still there as long as there are enough weapons to kill the entire population of the world many times over. Nuclear weapons are still poised strike all the major cities in the Northern Hemisphere. It would only take a computer error to trigger a global war.

If we manage to avoid a nuclear war, there are still other dangers that could destroy us all. There’s a stick joke that the reason we have not been contacted by an alien civilization tend to destroy them when they reach our stage. But I have sufficient faith in the good sense of the public to believe that we might prove this wrong.

3 個解答

  • Elena
    Lv 4
    2 0 年前




    我們要如何利用一般大眾對科學的興趣,教導他們了解一些科學背景,以幫助他們能在一些有關酸雨, 溫室效應, 核子武器及基因工程等議題的判斷上,做出正確的決定呢?很顯然地,這些基本知識來自學校所學.但學校一般多以枯燥乏味的方式教導這些知識.孩子們必須透過死記硬背以通過考試的方式,來學會這些東西,而且他們也很難看出所學與日常生活有何關連.而且科學的教學通常訴諸於等式,利用等式以簡潔正確地描述出數學觀念,但這往往使一般人感到恐懼害怕.





  • 1 0 年前

    不論是否我們喜歡, 我們生活所居住的世界在這幾百年改變了很多, 並且在下一個百年甚至改變得更多, 這是很有可能ㄉ。 一些人願意停止這些變化和去回到他們作為更純和更簡單的年紀看見的。 但是如同歷史一般, 過去的不是那ㄇ美好的

    無論如何, 一個人即使要, 人們回到更早的時), 知識和技術放了鐘能夠僅僅忘記 。 也不在上將來一個人能夠防止進一步的進步。 即使切斷了對於研究的所有政府錢, 競賽的力量仍然引起技術上的進步。 此外, 人們關於基本科學從思想不能停止調查心, 是否他們支付了它。如果我們接受我們不能防止科學和技術改變我們的世界, 我們處於確保在正確方向ㄝ, 過去的嘗試狀態能夠。

  • 匿名使用者
    2 0 年前

    這是用翻譯軟體翻的嗎?? 唸起來中文都不通.....