3 ms·
Specific illiteracy is positively omnipresent. Try talking to an accountant about Renaissance art. Try talking to a butcher about linguistic theory. To a neuro
by madaxe_again 6y ago
Specific illiteracy is positively omnipresent.
Try talking to an accountant about Renaissance art. Try talking to a butcher about linguistic theory. To a neurosurgeon about Egyptian architecture.
Specialisation is what our society mandates, and you don’t improve your lot by having knowledge which is extraneous to your specialisation - unless you have a lot of extraneous knowledge, in which case, congratulations, you’re an undesirable generalist.
We live in a world built with the scientific method, however, which means that scientific illiteracy has greater scope for making poorly informed impactful decisions. Likely nobody will die if you don’t know a finial from a pilaster.
So - rather than viewing this as a problem of scientific illiteracy, I view this as a problem of overspecialisation. We are taught, from early on, to focus on that which interests us, and to hone in on a tiny slice of information to pursue a specialised career.
Crack that, make being a generalist desirable, and you have your scientific literacy - but doing so is incompatible with our current economies.
- DobryMorozov 6y agoBut having niche knowledge of art, architecture and linguistics is much different than than understanding the scientific method, basic statistics, how to interpret studies and critical thinking. Those fundamental skills are essential to making informed decisions
- Tainnor 6y agoyou're just proving his point. knowing much about linguistics teaches you much about culture and/or the human cognition. knowing much about arts (including things like literature, music, etc.) teaches you things about the human condition, about history, about philosophy, ... I see those as equally fundamental as scientific knowledge.
- rjsw 6y ago> To a neurosurgeon about Egyptian architecture. See Ben Carson.