Scientific Literacy and the Tale of the Malevolent Toaster

                Scientific literacy is necessary for individuals to consider not only new discoveries in the sciences but to process information in an increasingly complex world.   In our society, with its 24/7 access to information, we are constantly bombarded by information that may or may not be true.  An understanding of basic scientific principles may offer us the tools to avoid panicking when the internet presents us with news of a brand-new, certainly lethal “superbug” from a single anecdotal study.   Healthy skepticism is inherent in scientific thinking, and it is something that we could all benefit from.  Scientific literacy presents us with a different way of thinking that stems from scientific inquiry. 

                Inherent in scientific literacy is a basic understanding of the scientific method.  Most students have an introduction to the scientific method in grade school, but how much can we (as politicians, scientists, policy makers, and writers) expect the typical citizen to remember about that one day in their classroom when they learned (perhaps from a film) about the steps of the method?  And yet, the scientific method represents an invaluable tool for all citizens, not just those who spend their time in a lab coat.  The related thought processes that accompany the steps to discovery (careful observation, hypothesizing about an outcome, performing an “experiment”, observing the result, communicating the result) provide an intuitive and controlled framework for problem solving that is often thrown out the window in everyday life.  Take, for example, a recent happening in my house:

Before I returned from winter break, the toaster in my kitchen went on the fritz.  Not quietly, but spectacularly.  The old toaster refused to go peacefully; it burned more pieces of bread than I knew we had in the house, it would emit a loud series of “pings” when it was plugged in, and would sit on the counter when not in use, dormant and radiating malevolence. Naturally, that coincided with the week that every person in my family had a hankering for toast.  I was often awoken in the early mornings by the smoke alarm from a scorched slice of rye and my efforts to make a proper avocado and tomato sandwich on toast were thwarted multiple times by this toaster.  And yet, we kept fiddling aimlessly with the toaster rather than unplug it and get to the bottom of its malfunction. We ended up throwing the toaster out after my father’s frustrated confrontation with it one Sunday morning. 

                Had we been using our scientific literacy, we might have been able to make an observation (the toaster is acting strangely), form a hypothesis (maybe wire apparatus for holding the bread in place is bent, maybe the dial is permanently stuck on the “burn the toast setting), perform an experiment (unbend the wire basket to ensure that the toast pops up in a timely manner), and observe the result (toasted, but not cremated bread).  Now, it goes without saying that problem solving is a part of human cognition, but there is a disconnect (particularly when we are frustrated or puzzled) between conscious, measured, scientific problem solving and “just push all of the buttons and hope that the toaster will toast correctly this time”.  Consciously employing the scientific method for simple problem solving would prevent an individual from throwing said toaster out the front door and into the yard.

                This understanding of scientific principles and the through processes associated with new concepts and scientific literacy will allow citizens to better distinguish fact from opinion.  In a world where opinion is often presented as hard fact or data is manipulated to reflect a specific viewpoint (or group of politicians/lobbyists), the ability to distinguish objective data from subjective details is one of the utmost importance.  An understanding of the difference between fact and opinion will also contribute to an increase in elevated, respectful discourse.  If individuals are able to distinguish facts from demagoguery, they will better be able to use more factual arguments to support their point of view, which may result in fewer exchanges that end with neither side able to articulate a factual point and instead descending into petty exchanges of insults.  Additionally, it is important to understand the science behind our current issues, including but not limited to: global warming, stem cell research, psychological health/psychiatric care, public health/epidemiology, biomedical innovations, and pharmacology and drugs.  Without a basic understanding of the concepts behind these issues, it is difficult to form an informed opinion, which runs counterproductive to meaningful participation in a democracy.