Why do most people find science boring?

[billvon]

I'm the ignorant joe on the street who drives a porche and has a model for a girlfriend.

Hey, if you have a fancy car and a pretty girlfriend, and those are the things that are important to you, then that's great. Not everyone shares your value system, of course.

I'm all those people out there who yawn and roll their eyes when you go off on some science tangent. Let me have it. I can take it.

No need. Feel free not to read anything I post. (But for some reason you seem to care a lot about what I post, because you always answer it. Odd.)

Society had to come up with some place science nerds could be useful. That's why they built labs and gave them jobs there. Then they could catalogue data by themselves until the day they die. "Good job Mr. Scientist. Here's your paycheck."

I imagine there are some people like that. That's also fine for them. They don't bother me; not sure why they bother you. Envy?

 

[exchemist]

That's good. Let it out. All that anger and resentiment. Use me as your punching bag. I'm the ignorant joe on the street who drives a porche and has a model for a girlfriend. I'm all those people out there who yawn and roll their eyes when you go off on some science tangent. Let me have it. I can take it.



Society had to come up with some place science nerds could be useful. That's why they built labs and gave them jobs there. Then they could catalogue data by themselves until the day they die. "Good job Mr. Scientist. Here's your paycheck."

This sounds like a variant on that old, "I'm thick and proud of it!" anti-intellectual trope that is one of the curses of the Anglo-Saxon world. Taking pride in actual ignorance seems to me the ultimate mark of stupidity. Boko Haram, here we come.

 

[Yazata]

I'll be frank here. I don't think it's normal to be interested alot in science. I mean think about it. Why would anyone spend so much time gaining knowledge about irrelevant abstract facts and theories and equations who already has plenty to occupy themselves with such as girlfriends, boyfriends, friends, family, their career, recreation, travel, movies, music, fiction, money, possessions, pets, etc. You know..all the NORMAL things humans are into. Why devote yourself so much to physical inhuman processes unless there was something already in you that was a little inhuman also? Perhaps somewhere on the autism spectrum, or a little OCD, or a schizoid personality type who is emotionally awkward and stuck inside their own heads.

What could be more human than science, philosophy and scholarship generally? Are those things done by anything other than human beings? What could be more human than being smart and inquisitive? Isn't that what our species specializes in?

So it will always be this minority of dysfunctionals called "nerds" who you will hear pushing science as some sort of supremely valuable knowledge.

Your 'disfunctional' "nerds" seem to function pretty well where I live, in Silicon Valley. You sound like high-school, MR. (I hated high-school.)

Why know the mating habits of the african dung beetle?

Darwin paid a lot of attention to finches' beaks in the Galapagos, and deduced a lot from it.

Why put so much effort in understanding the functioning of neurons

You seem very interested in consciousness. Awareness seems to arise in nervous systems.

or genes

Genes are developmental biology's instruction set. Not only that, genetic codes contain a great deal of information about organisms' evolutionary history.

or electrons?

Electrons are fundamental particles, so there's ontological interest. As for applications, there's everything from chemical bonding to electromagnetism. Electrons are useful little devils.

Because it's the TRUTH, and god knows the truth is noble and enlightening and liberating in itself.

I think that truth is a value. In my life it's one of the most important values. Knowledge is inherently enlightening. It isn't an accident that so many religious traditions imagine their religious paths gnostically, as in terms of learning some fundamental cosmic truth.

But liberating from what? Science becomes the way these misfits in society compensate for being on the outside growing up--it's suddenly a sacred calling to have all this specialist information that no one else gets or finds interesting in the least. No longer under the shadow of a jock brother, or a prom queen sister, they can escape into this fantasy universe where everything is in order and they can find undisturbed the peace and exhilaration of just being their overanalytical and monomaniacal little selves.

You are mad because the idiots flamed you on the other thread for seemingly blaspheming their holy scientistic catechism, so here you are lashing out wildly and hysterically in a way calculated to alienate you from everyone around you and to lose you all your friends and allies. It's sad that you let them push you to this point. You're handing them their victory on a plate.

You care way too much what anonymous discussion board voices say.

 

[krash661]

I'll be frank here. I don't think it's normal to be interested alot in science. I mean think about it. Why would anyone spend so much time gaining knowledge about irrelevant abstract facts and theories and equations who already has plenty to occupy themselves with such as girlfriends, boyfriends, friends, family, their career, recreation, travel, movies, music, fiction, money, possessions, pets, etc. You know..all the NORMAL things humans are into. Why devote yourself so much to physical inhuman processes unless there was something already in you that was a little inhuman also? Perhaps somewhere on the autism spectrum, or a little OCD, or a schizoid personality type who is emotionally awkward and stuck inside their own heads.

So it will always be this minority of dysfunctionals called "nerds" who you will hear pushing science as some sort of supremely valuable knowledge. Why know the mating habits of the african dung beetle? Why put so much effort in understanding the functioning of neurons or genes or electrons? Because it's the TRUTH, and god knows the truth is noble and enlightening and liberating in itself. But liberating from what? Science becomes the way these misfits in society compensate for being on the outside growing up--it's suddenly a sacred calling to have all this specialist information that no one else gets or finds interesting in the least. No longer under the shadow of a jock brother, or a prom queen sister, they can escape into this fantasy universe where everything is in order and they can find undisturbed the peace and exhilaration of just being their overanalytical and monomaniacal little selves.

because some do not want to have a low level meantility. it's that simple.
what i find weird is, i never seen or heard anyone beg to have a low level mentality.funny.

 

[C C]

Nowadays, the Discovery Channel is a wasteland of hillbilly reality shows and dangerous occupational docudramas. You'd be lucky if you see even one science show there in a month. Why is this? Why is science so boring to the general public? Is it not being presented in an exciting enough way? Or do most people find it too abstract and irrelevant to their everyday lives?

While information from quicker sources than watching a ___ minute program might have cut into ratings, any broader apathy could still be due to the traditional repellent of casual interest (which embraces more than just science fields): The esoteric or "in-house weeks / months of study" representational systems of assorted professions that spur boredom in many people (similar to their reactions to legalese).

As long as the applicable pop-science venue maintains a circus-like attraction for the public -- via skirting around or vastly generalizing the tedious details of the work and the accounting / evaluation of accumulated data in the context of said representational systems (usually quantitative) -- their attention spans can be hooked for awhile. [Or just crouch something like forensic science in a cop tv-show.] Many other kinds of jobs have become less "glamorous" over the years due to the mounting "paperwork" (as metaphor) needed to satisfy administration, bureaucracy, the warding-off of litigation, etc. Though in the case of science, that area of "boring procedure" is crucial to the method rather than sometimes being a "if you want to avoid being discharged / fired, avoid having your brains sued-out, dodge arrest, avoid being depicted as monstrously irresponsible by the local media, etc" affair.

 

[krash661]

What, exactly, have you done here to "help people get over" science?

yeah, i was curious as to why someone would come to a science site and ridicule science. then it lead to only one conclusion. it's to make individuals angry to fulfil a low level minded arguing craving.just a thought.

 

[krash661]

That's good. Let it out. All that anger and resentiment. Use me as your punching bag.

hypocritical and contradicting much ?

 

[Russ_Watters]

As of 2009, the average STEM salary was $78,000 versus $43,000 for the overall average(including STEM). Only 4 of 97 STEM fields had salaries below the national average.
[Google]

 

[Magical Realist]

You are mad because the idiots flamed you on the other thread for seemingly blaspheming their holy scientistic catechism, so here you are lashing out wildly and hysterically in a way calculated to alienate you from everyone around you and to lose you all your friends and allies. It's sad that you let them push you to this point. You're handing them their victory on a plate.

Actually it's more a self-indictment. I'm a science nerd deluxe, having used it most my life to boost my sense of "knowing things" that nobody else gives a crap about. Then I would fault THEM as being ignorant because they weren't interested in all this information. A few years ago I bought this big book about trees. I had decided I was going to learn all the kinds of trees and be able to distinguish them by sight. Well, for one thing that's harder than it seems. You go by leaf shape, bark, overall shape, etc. But there's just too many. But what really made me give up was every time I pointed out a kind of tree to someone they were like "so what?" I had added to the pile of useless artifactual information that people just don't care about, and it would serve only to isolate and denormalize me further. People just don't want to hear you spout your know-it-all science knowledge. Sure, I could just further resent people as wanting to be ignorant. For wanting to live their lives without worrying about which trees are which. But for once I worried about myself. Why WAS all this information so interesting to me? What was I gaining from studying science? I must be using it for something. As compensation for some sort of weakness or inadequacy in myself. That's what spurred that line of thought, which has really been brewing for some time now. I just didn't have an excuse to articulate it until the past few days when I discovered how so many people use science the same exact way--as a moral system for being knowledgable and not being ignorant like everyone else.

 

[C C]

[..] A few years ago I bought this big book about trees. I had decided I was going to learn all the kinds of trees and be able to distinguish them by sight. Well, for one thing that's harder than it seems. You go by leaf shape, bark, overall shape, etc. But there's just too many. But what really made me give up was every time I pointed out a kind of tree to someone they were like "so what?" I had added to the pile of useless artifactual information that people just don't care about, and it would serve only to isolate and denormalize me further. People just don't want to hear you spout your know-it-all science knowledge.

OTOH, some outdoors individual who cut firewood for people during the wintertime could have related to that. Tossing in trivial observations like "Elm is impossible to split by hand until dried-out; hickory only slightly less so." That is, many a Sheldon (those exclusively city-bred, anyway) could similarly die of boredom listening to the interests and detailed occupational knowledge of rural folk. With the latter having expressed similar disinterest beforehand on the band gap energy of cluster assembled materials with zero to three dimensional architectures. In general, people usually aren't fascinated in nuts and bolt level information about their neighbor's locally uncommon profession and exotic hobbies till their practical needs or mutable social orientations can be assisted by such.

 

[Magical Realist]

OTOH, some outdoors individual who cut firewood for people during the wintertime could have related to that. Tossing in trivial observations like "Elm is impossible to split by hand until dried-out; hickory only slightly less so." That is, many a Sheldon (those exclusively city-bred, anyway) could similarly die of boredom listening to the interests and detailed occupational knowledge of rural folk. With the latter having expressed similar disinterest beforehand on the band gap energy of cluster assembled materials with zero to three dimensional architectures. In general, people usually aren't fascinated in nuts and bolt level information about their neighbor's locally uncommon profession and exotic hobbies till their practical needs or mutable social orientations can be assisted by such.

That would require a hands-on familiarity with the practical uses of trees, something I am far from having at this point in my life. But having been attracted to the call of Walden Pond in the past, it might just serve me well in the future perhaps, should I ever shed my reliance on modern conveniences and opt for the simplified life. "Hey, did ya know mesquite sap can be chewed on for sweet energy?"

 

[rpenner]

I don't think it's normal to be interested alot in science.

"Normal" isn't a value. If everyone was "normal", no one would be exceptional, no one would be a leader, no one would be left to tackle problems which were "harder than normal." Universal embrace of just the "normal" is a program which would spell the death of civilization.

Erich Fromm:

It is naively assumed that the fact that the majority of people share certain ideas or feelings proves the validity of these ideas and feelings. Nothing is further from the truth. Consensual validation as such has no bearing whatsoever on reason or mental health. Just as there is a folie à deux (delusional ideas between two persons). there is a folie à millions. The fact that millions of people share the same vices does not make these vices virtues, the fact that they share so many errors does not make the errors to be truths, and the fact that millions of people share the same mental pathology does not make these people sane.

https://meaningunfolding.wordpress....the-fallacy-of-normalcy-no-wish-to-be-normal/
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-common-practice.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/bandwagon.html

Why would anyone spend so much time gaining knowledge about irrelevant abstract facts and theories and equations who already has plenty to occupy themselves with such as girlfriends, boyfriends, friends, family, their career, recreation, travel, movies, music, fiction, money, possessions, pets, etc.

You don't get to label what is irrelevant to other people. Not all of these categories of things are exclusive to the practice of science. Poor people would require less time to occupy themselves with their money, travel and possesions, while rich people can afford to hire others to manage things that don't interest them. Regardless, people are and do many things so it's not an absolute choice of doing science and doing non-science things, so you frame their choice as a dilemma when it is not.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html

By definition, what is "irrelevant" is specific to a place, time and situation. Since knowledge is something that one carries with one through all places, times and situations, it is impossible to classify knowledge of an abstract fact as universally irrelevant.

Why devote yourself so much to physical inhuman processes unless there was something already in you that was a little inhuman also? Perhaps somewhere on the autism spectrum, or a little OCD, or a schizoid personality type who is emotionally awkward and stuck inside their own heads.

This is where you crossed the line into the insults that were allegedly reported. Can you not see how counterproductive such baseless claims are? In your first sentence, you could replace "inhuman" with "natural" or "awesome" or "comprehensible" without changing the form of your argument, therefore your argument is just a baseless value label.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-spite.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

So it will always be this minority of dysfunctionals called "nerds" who you will hear pushing science as some sort of supremely valuable knowledge.

But not exclusively some unevidenced minority of dysfunctional nerds.
Congress and President Lincoln didn't seem dysfunctional when he signed legislation creating the National Academy of Sciences.
President Wilson didn't seem dysfunctional when he signed executive order 2859, formalizing the National Research Council.
Congress and Hoover didn't seem dysfunctional when he signed legislation creating the National Institutes of Health.
Congress and Truman didn't seem dysfunctional when he signed legislation creating the National Science Foundation.
Congress and Eisenhower didn't seem dysfunctional when he signed legislation creating NASA.

It turns out, when a nation has a need to know something, they turn to science, nerd or no-nerd; dysfunctional or not.

Why know the mating habits of the african dung beetle?

Because elephants poop, in great quantities. And if you have a lot of poop, you don't want to have your population of specific dung beetles die out:

Australians learned this lesson the hard way, when the outback was nearly buried in cattle dung. Two hundred years ago, settlers introduced horses, sheep, and cattle to Australia, all grazing animals that were new to the native dung beetles. The Australian dung beetles were raised on poop from Down Under, like kangaroo poo, and refused to clean up after the exotic newcomers. Around 1960, Australia imported exotic dung beetles that were adapted to eating cattle dung, and things got back to normal.

http://insects.about.com/od/beetles/a/10-Fascinating-Facts-About-Dung-Beetles.htm

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html

Why put so much effort in understanding the functioning of neurons or genes or electrons?

Because there are crazy people on the Internet. God help their children.

Because it's the TRUTH, and god knows the truth is noble and enlightening and liberating in itself. But liberating from what?

Ignorance. Ignorance is the prison of not even knowing that you have choices.

Science becomes the way these misfits in society compensate for being on the outside growing up--it's suddenly a sacred calling to have all this specialist information that no one else gets or finds interesting in the least.

Blame President Lincoln (1863), King Charles II (1660), Roger Bacon (1267) or Robert Grosseteste (c. 1235) for this sudden development.

No longer under the shadow of a jock brother, or a prom queen sister, they can escape into this fantasy universe where everything is in order and they can find undisturbed the peace and exhilaration of just being their overanalytical and monomaniacal little selves.

Please support your use of "monomaniacal" with some evidence other than "psychological projection."

 

[rpenner]

Actually it's more a self-indictment. I'm a science nerd deluxe, having used it most my life to boost my sense of "knowing things" that nobody else gives a crap about. Then I would fault THEM as being ignorant because they weren't interested in all this information.

Based on what you wrote, it seems that in the past you lacked social skills. Has anything changed in that regard?

A few years ago I bought this big book about trees. I had decided I was going to learn all the kinds of trees and be able to distinguish them by sight. Well, for one thing that's harder than it seems. You go by leaf shape, bark, overall shape, etc. But there's just too many.

So you were a dilettante at arboreal field biology. This contrasts with earlier claims that you were a "science nerd deluxe" -- more like "fair-weather science groupie".

But what really made me give up was every time I pointed out a kind of tree to someone they were like "so what?" I had added to the pile of useless artifactual information that people just don't care about, and it would serve only to isolate and denormalize me further. People just don't want to hear you spout your know-it-all science knowledge.

Empirically, you validated that there is no learning without a receptive student. This is a long-recognized phenomenon, except for people with poor social skills.

Sure, I could just further resent people as wanting to be ignorant. For wanting to live their lives without worrying about which trees are which. But for once I worried about myself. Why WAS all this information so interesting to me? What was I gaining from studying science?

From the above example, it appear that you were trying to use it as a platform to try and gain a position of social authority over your neighbors. They rejected your posturing as an authority and you mistook that as their rejection of knowledge.

I must be using it for something. As compensation for some sort of weakness or inadequacy in myself. That's what spurred that line of thought, which has really been brewing for some time now.

As above, you were a dilettante, with no serious scholarship, one big book on trees that exceeded your capabilities, and a poorly realized plan to gain the esteem of others by answering questions that they weren't asking. Rather than being a guide, you sought to position yourself as their leader which they unsurprisingly rejected.

I just didn't have an excuse to articulate it until the past few days when I discovered how so many people use science the same exact way--as a moral system for being knowledgable and not being ignorant like everyone else.

Ignorance isn't a moral system. Neither is it absolute. No man can know everything so we are all differentially ignorant. You, for example, seem to lack social skills and self-perception so would not see your writing as a self-indictment when you attempt to cast others as the evil ones.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/hasty-generalization.html
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

 

[Magical Realist]

From the above example, it appear that you were trying to use it as a platform to try and gain a position of social authority over your neighbors. They rejected your posturing as an authority and you mistook that as their rejection of knowledge.

Precisely my point. That interest and obsessive acquisition of irrelevant artifactual information is a ploy by science nerds for seeming greater that they are. For trying to climb out of the pit of being different and outside of the usual operations of social existence. But in fact it only isolates one further, to the point that you are left with nothing but posting in science groups sharing your irrelevant knowledge with fellow monomaniacs who are seeking the same sort of social validation. That's how science becomes a religion. A "way" to redeem oneself of the original sin of "complacent ignorance". As if knowledge were somehow valuable in itself. A gnosis of spiritual transcendence. It isn't. Knowledge has to be relevant somehow to be valuable. Just knowing alot of facts doesn't make you some sort of superior person.

 

[origin]

I had decided I was going to learn all the kinds of trees and be able to distinguish them by sight. Well, for one thing that's harder than it seems. You go by leaf shape, bark, overall shape, etc. But there's just too many. But what really made me give up was every time I pointed out a kind of tree to someone they were like "so what?"

I got a book several years ago that was about nature in winter. I was able to and am still able to identify most of the trees in my area by the bark and/or the shape of the tree. I find that this very satisfying and increases my enjoyment of the outdoors. I did not learn this information to be able to tell others. However over the years I have had people comment on a tree and have told them what kind of tree was, this usually led to an interesting conversation. If you are trying to learn things to tell other people and not learning this information for yourself, it is no wonder you lose interest.

 

[krash661]

Precisely my point. That interest and obsessive acquisition of irrelevant artifactual information is a ploy for seeming greater that we are. For trying to climb out of the pit of being different and outside of the usual operations of social existence. But in fact it only isolates one further, to the point that you are left with nothing but posting in science groups sharing your irrelevant knowledge with fellow monomaniacs who are seeking the same sort of social validation. That's how science becomes a religion. A "way" to redeem oneself of the original sin of "complacent ignorance". As if knowledge were somehow valuable in itself. A gnosis of spiritual transcendence. It isn't. Knowledge has to be relevant somehow to be valuable.

so you're ranting and raving, ridiculing science , only because no one accepted you as an authority or praised you ?
sounds more like emotional instability. are you ranting and raving because you need to fill that emptiness from no one praising you ?
funny.

 

[Magical Realist]

If you are trying to learn things to tell other people and not learning this information for yourself, it is no wonder you lose interest.

I WAS learning the information FOR myself. Just as most science whizzes use information FOR themselves. To become smarter and a better person. A sort of assumed value that just having more information, even irrelevant information, increases your value as a person. The fear of being ignorant, the much detested state of the masses you are trying to rise above and stand out from. As if everyone, even ourselves, weren't ignorant in SOME field of knowledge.

 

[rpenner]

You don't get to label what is irrelevant to other people. ...

By definition, what is "irrelevant" is specific to a place, time and situation. Since knowledge is something that one carries with one through all places, times and situations, it is impossible to classify knowledge of an abstract fact as universally irrelevant.

A point which bears repeating.

Knowledge has to be relevant somehow to be valuable.

Incorrect. Knowledge is inherently valuable. It's value (and relevance!) depends however on the contingency of circumstance. This is of no surprise in economic theory. Gold has no relevant value if there is no food to be bought. Knowledge, like gold, requires a context in which to be valued.

I WAS learning the information FOR myself. Just as most science whizzes use information FOR themselves.

Again, that's not doing science. That's just being a science groupie.

 

[paddoboy]

I find science, particularly astronomy/cosmology as totally awesome and gratifying. I find science as being a totally an indispensible part of human activity and having benefited humanity unquestionably.
I find philosophy quite dreary and boring...I find listening to heavy metal/rap and techno music as impossible......I find stamp collecting boring....I find knitting and sewing boring......I find playing tiddly winks as boring...I find anti science trolls as boringly unbearable......I find religious trolls as unbearable.

 

[Magical Realist]

Knowledge is inherently valuable. It's value (and relevance!) depends however on the contingency of circumstance. This is of no surprise in economic theory. Gold has no relevant value if there is no food to be bought. Knowledge, like gold, requires a context in which to be valued.

No it isn't inherently valuable, especially when it is irrelevant. Just knowing facts doesn't give value to anything unless those facts are somehow relevant to one's life. And even then the value of knowing those facts still depends on if you actually use them or not. I can learn accounting, the geography of Madagascar, or the chemical composition of the planet Neptune. But none of that knowledge is of value to me because it is irrelevant to my life. There is no inherent value is knowing facts.