Reading Practice
Communication
in Science
A
Science plays an increasingly significant role in people’s
lives, making the faithful communication of scientific developments more
important than ever. Yet such communication is fraught with challenges that can
easily distort discussions, leading to unnecessary confusion and
misunderstandings.
B
Some problems stem from the esoteric nature of current
research and the associated difficulty of finding sufficiently faithful
terminology. Abstraction and complexity are not signs that a given scientific
direction is wrong, as some commentators have suggested, but are instead a
tribute to the success of human ingenuity in meeting the increasingly complex
challenges that nature presents. They can, however, make communication more
difficult. But many of the biggest challenges for science reporting arise
because in areas of evolving research, scientists themselves often only partly
understand the full implications of any particular advance or development.
Since that dynamic applies to most of the scientific developments that directly
affect people’s lives global warming, cancer research, diet studies – learning
how to overcome it is critical to spurring a more informed scientific debate
among the broader public.
C
Ambiguous word choices are the source
of some misunderstandings. Scientists often employ colloquial terminology,
which they then assign a specific meaning that is impossible
to fathom without proper training. The term “relativity,”
for example, is intrinsically misleading. Many interpret the theory to mean
that everything is relative and there are no absolutes. Yet although the
measurements any observer makes depend on his coordinates and reference frame,
the physical phenomena he measures have an invariant description that
transcends that observer’s particular coordinates. Einstein’s theory of
relativity is really about finding an invariant description of physical
phenomena. True, Einstein agreed with the idea that his theory would have been
better named “Invarianten theorie.” But the term “relativity” was already
entrenched at the time for him to change.
D
“The uncertainty principle” is another frequently abused
term. It is sometimes interpreted as a limitation on observers and their
ability to make measurements.
E
But it is not about intrinsic limitations on any one
particular measurement; it is about the inability to precisely measure
particular pairs of quantities simultaneously? The first interpretation is
perhaps more engaging from a philosophical or political perspective. It’s just
not what the science is about.
F
Even the word “theory” can be a problem. Unlike most
people, who use the word to describe a passing conjecture that they often
regard as suspect, physicists have very specific ideas in mind when they talk
about theories. For physicists, theories entail a definite physical framework
embodied in a set of fundamental assumptions about the world that lead to a
specific set of equations and predictions – ones that are borne out by
successful predictions. Theories aren’t necessarily shown to be correct or
complete immediately. Even Einstein took the better part of a decade to develop
the correct version of his theory of general relativity. But eventually both
the ideas and the measurements settle down and theories are either proven
correct, abandoned or absorbed into other, more encompassing theories.
G
“Global warming” is another example of problematic
terminology. Climatologists predict more drastic fluctuations in temperature
and rainfall – not necessarily that every place will be warmer. The name sometimes
subverts the debate, since it lets people argue that their winter was worse, so
how could there be global warming? Clearly “global climate change” would have
been a better name. But not all problems stem solely from poor word choices.
Some stem from the intrinsically complex nature of much of modern science.
Science sometimes transcends this limitation: remarkably, chemists were able to
detail the precise chemical processes involved in the destruction of the ozone
layer, making the evidence that chlorofluorocarbon gases (Freon, for example)
were destroying the ozone layer indisputable.
H
A better understanding of the mathematical significance of
results and less insistence on a simple story would help to clarify many
scientific discussions. For several months, Harvard was tortured months,
Harvard was tortured by empty debates over the relative intrinsic scientific
abilities of men and women. One of the more amusing aspects of the discussion
was that those who believed in the differences and those who didn’t use the
same evidence about gender-specific special ability? How could that be? The
answer is that the data shows no substantial effects. Social factors might
account for these tiny differences, which in any case have an unclear
connection to scientific ability. Not much of a headline when phrased that way,
is it? Each type of science has its own source of complexity and potential for
miscommunication. Yet there are steps we can take to improve public
understanding in all cases. The first would be to inculcate greater
understanding and acceptance of indirect scientific evidence. The information
from an unmanned space mission is no less legitimate than the information from
one in which people are on board.
I
This doesn’t mean questioning an interpretation, but it
also doesn’t mean equating indirect evidence with blind belief, as people
sometimes suggest. Second, we might need different standards for evaluating
science with urgent policy implications than research with the purely
theoretical value. When scientists say they are not certain about their
predictions, it doesn’t necessarily mean they’ve found nothing substantial. It
would be better if scientists were more open about the mathematical
significance of their results and if the public didn’t treat math as quite so
scary; statistics and errors, which tell us the uncertainty in a measurement,
give us the tools to evaluate new developments fairly.
J
But most important, people have to
recognize that science can be complex. If we accept only simple stories, the
description will necessarily be distorted. When advances are subtle or
complicated, scientists should be willing to go the extra distance to give
proper explanations and the public should be more patient about the truth. Even
so, some difficulties are unavoidable. Most developments reflect work in
progress, so the story is complex because no one yet knows the big picture.
Questions 1-5
Choose the correct letter A, B,
C or D.
Write
your answers in boxes 1-5 on your
answer sheet.
1. Why faithful
science communication important?
A Science
plays an increasingly significant role in people’s lives.
B Science
is fraught with challenges public are interested in.
C The
nature of complexity in science communication leads to confusion.
D Scientific
inventions are more important than ever before.
2. what is the
reason that the author believes for the biggest challenges for science
reporting
A phenomenon
such as global warming, cancer research, diet studies is too complex.
B Scientists
themselves often only partly understand the Theory
of Evolution
C Scientists
do not totally comprehend the meaning of certain scientific evolution
D Scientists
themselves often partly understand the esoteric communication nature
3. According to
the 3rd paragraph, the reference to the
term and example of “theory of relativity” is to demonstrate
A theory
of relativity is about an invariant physical phenomenon
B common
people may be misled by the inaccurate choice of scientific phrase
C the
term “relativity,” is designed to be misleading public
D everything
is relative and there is no absolutes existence
4. Which one
is a good example of appropriate word choice:
A Scientific
theory for the uncertainty principle
B phenomenon
of Global warming
C the
importance of ozone layer
D Freon’s destructive process on
environmental
5. What is a
surprising finding of the Harvard debates in the passage?
A There
are equal intrinsic scientific abilities of men and women.
B The
proof applied by both sides seemed to be of no big difference.
C The
scientific data usually shows no substantial figures to support a debated idea.
D Social
factors might have a clear connection to scientific ability.
Questions 6-9
Do the following statements agree with the
information given in Reading Passage? In
boxes 6-9 on your answer sheet,
write
TRUE if the statement is true
FALSE if the statement is false
NOT GIVEN if the information is not given in the
passage
6..................... “Global warming” scientifically refers to
greater fluctuations in temperature and rainfall rather than a universal
temperature rise.
7..................... More media coverage of “global warming”
would help the public to recognize the phenomenon.
8..................... Harvard debates should focus more on female
scientist and male scientists
9..................... Public understanding and acceptance of
indirect scientific evidence in all cases would lead to confusion
Questions 10-14
Complete the following summary of the paragraphs of Reading
Passage
Using NO MORE THAN
TWO WORDS from the Reading Passage for each answer.
Write
your answers in boxes 10-14 on your
answer sheet.
Science Communication is fraught with
challenges that can easily distort discussions, leading to unnecessary
confusion and misunderstandings. Firstly,
Ambiguous 10..................... are the source of some misunderstandings.
Common people without proper training do not understand clearly or deeply a
specific scientific meaning via the 11.....................
scientists often employed. Besides, the measurements any 12..................... makes can not be confined to describe in
a(n)
constant 13.....................
yet the phenomenon can be. What’s more, even the word “theory” can be a
problem. Theories aren’t necessarily shown to be correct or complete
immediately since scientists often evolved better versions of specific
theories, a good example can be the theory of 14...................... Thus, most importantly people have to
recognize that science can be complex.
