Does science fiction help kids learn to like science?

[Cathy]

Dann said:

...if you are trying to convert your students to SF fandom, you probably won't find them useful!

Somehow, from what you have said about science fiction fans, and from what I have read in your first link, I do not think I am trying to convert my students to fandom, per se!

Are all readers of science fiction fans, and am I a part of fandom?

I think my goal for the kids I work with is that they would be a little more open-minded and positive toward science, and perhaps also toward science fiction.

I have a friend who says she will never see a movie with the word "star" in the title, for fear it might be science fiction. It's such a strange thing to say (so many SF titles don't have the word "star" in them, and at least some non-SF titles do, right?), but I am sure she is joking about the rule.

But she is not joking about her antipathy toward science fiction.

I don't care that much. She's a friend; she doesn't have to like what I like. But since MOST of my women friends share her complete avoidance of SF, and since I am in a book club with some of these women, and since many men I know also avoid SF, thinking of the entire genre as Star Wars knock-offs, I guess, I do give a small sigh every once in a while when she spouts off against an entire genre that she has never sampled.

One month I got to choose a book for the book club, and I chose The Wrong Reflection by Gillian Bradshaw. I really enjoyed this book and thought that many of my friends, even the ones who did not usually read SF, would enjoy it. (By the way, my anti-SF friend is not in the book club.)

The only two members of the book club who read the book (other than myself) DID enjoy it, and one of them later tricked my anti-SF friend into reading it. She told her it was a good, suspenseful read, and she never said anything about it being SF. (Don't know if she went so far as to hide the cover if my anti-SF friend just didn't look at it carefully or...?)

My anti-SF friend read The Wrong Reflection and loved the book, although about 3/4 of the way through the book, she says, she felt dreadfully betrayed when she realized that it was a science fiction book. While she readily admits that she loved the book, she still maintains firmly that she will NEVER pick up another science fiction book, nor watch a science fiction movie/TV show.

Kind of funny, really, how passionately she resists a genre that most people we hang with ALSO do not read at all, nor watch too often in the movies or on TV. Like I said before, I don't care all that much. But sometimes I sigh...

 

[dann]

Well, if you were a real fan, I'm sure you'd already know!

You may find it funny how your friend "passionately ... resists" having to read scifi, but I have a hard time understanding why you seem to be so keen on having her read it!
I don't read romance novels or westerns, but I never had to passionately resist reading them since nobody ever wanted to force them on me ...

I can see why you'd want people to be interested in science (e.g. of evolution) instead of e.g. the nonsense of creationism - it has consequences - but why are you so anxious to have people read a kind fiction that does not appeal to them? It reminds me of the people who want me to eat cheese even though I don't like it: 'If only you tasted this Brie, I'm sure that you'd change your mind!'
Well, they would probably miss it if they did not get a regular supply, but I certainly don't!
I know what it feels like to become so enthusiastic about something that you would like everybody to share your experience, but why is it so important to you to convince them that they are wrong about their rejction of science fiction that you are willing to risk p******g them off?

 

[Cathy]

I said earlier:

I don't care that much. She's a friend; she doesn't have to like what I like.

Dann wonders:

...why you seem to be so keen on having her read [science fiction]!...
I never had to passionately resist reading [romance, westerns] since nobody ever wanted to force them on me...

That's the thing I just said: I'm not "so keen" on having her read SF. That's what "I don't care" means. She's a friend. Friends' tastes often vary. "She doesn't have to like what I like," I said, and I meant it. I certainly don't want to try to force my tastes or particular reading material on her. I don't even want to trick her into reading SF -- another friend did that, but I would never have done so.

I said that it was weird...

how passionately she resists a genre that most people we hang with ALSO do not read

What I meant by that is, why does she feel so passionate about it when, at least in our social group, she is the norm? People are *not* always trying to get her to read/watch/like SF; people rarely bring up SF; it's just not something anyone cares much about, one way or another.

I can imagine how you feel when people urge you to try, or like, cheese. I hate the taste of alcohol--can't even stand it in desserts or chocolates, although I LOVE most desserts and chocolates--and there have been times when people seem really bugged by that, and determined to find some drink I would enjoy. (Hey, I found it: a virgin strawberry daiquiri! Strawberries and sugar and ice -- yum! But alcohol ruins it for me.) I can understand that people like to share their interests with others, but you are correct that there is no reason to feel invested in "converting" anyone to one's own taste.

And you are also correct that my concern in starting this thread has been interest in moving kids, especially teens, at least a bit away from this anti-science attitude that they claim to (and actually seem to) have. You're correct: attitudes toward science (and scientific findings and scientists) do have consequences.

Dann asked:

...why is it so important to you to convince them that they are wrong about their rejction of science fiction that you are willing to risk p******g them off?

It's not important to me. Also, I don't think that reading taste can be right or wrong.

Maybe you thought that the words "sometimes I sigh" meant that I am invested in my friends' reading habits, really, even though I claim not to be. But I just meant that it is sometimes a bit frustrating when people say that they hate a wide variety of things that they've never tried, just because of a label. Only a BIT frustrating, mind you...

 

[GreyICE]

Well, if you were a real fan, I'm sure you'd already know!

You may find it funny how your friend "passionately ... resists" having to read scifi, but I have a hard time understanding why you seem to be so keen on having her read it!
I don't read romance novels or westerns, but I never had to passionately resist reading them since nobody ever wanted to force them on me ...

I can see why you'd want people to be interested in science (e.g. of evolution) instead of e.g. the nonsense of creationism - it has consequences - but why are you so anxious to have people read a kind fiction that does not appeal to them? It reminds me of the people who want me to eat cheese even though I don't like it: 'If only you tasted this Brie, I'm sure that you'd change your mind!'
Well, they would probably miss it if they did not get a regular supply, but I certainly don't!
I know what it feels like to become so enthusiastic about something that you would like everybody to share your experience, but why is it so important to you to convince them that they are wrong about their rejction of science fiction that you are willing to risk p******g them off?

Because Science Fiction, unlike Westerns and Romances (and yes, I have read them) contains ideas and themes that are very interesting, and lead to interesting discussions. Discussions of these ideas can go on for quite some time and are usually very very interesting.

In contrast, Westerns and Romances really just don't contain that many deep ideas. Those that do, such as Gone With the Wind (a romance) are the sort of books that people encourage others to read.

Science fiction as a genre is very deep and fascinating, and moreover people seem to have an irrational hatred for it. While most people who dislike westerns just say "I'm not really into cowboy books" and most people who dislike romances say "the plot is cheesy." Moreover, very few people will refuse to read a book because it has a romantic plot or subplot, or a western setting. Add any science fiction elements to a book, and there are readers that will drop it on sight. I find that attitude distasteful.

So would I try to 'convert' someone to SF? No. But I would be interested in discussing it with people who read it, so if I know someone likes to read, I'll usually recommend a few SF books to them.

 

[stevea]

It's because of how it's taught. I was homeschooled (long story) and took my science classes with a Chemistry Professor who did tutoring classes on the side for homeschoolers.

This was his explanation of the mol:

"It's a conversion factor between atomic mass units and grams."

He had me memorize it (6.022*10^23, and I can spit that out stone cold drunk) and that was that. We spent, oh, 15 minutes on it, I did some problems with it, and then it was accepted. I used it when it was necessary. We occasionally swerved back to it (mols are great, great, great units to use for masses you see in the lab, rather than grams/kilograms (which are terrible) but in general, they're accepted.

My sister, taking chemistry in high school spent a month doing mols. I was beyond horrified. Amazingly, everyone in her class, her included, hate chemistry.

There are a few problems with how science is taught in the schools.

Wow - that's quite an ANECDOTE. Someone here continually and irrelevantly notes anecdotes are pointless as evidence - so we can immediately dismiss your conclusion.

Now the most peculiar thing about this anecdote is that you learned an odd and tautological definition for the mole. A mole of items is just Avogodro's number of items. Where Avogadro's number was determined as the number of C12 atoms in 12 grams. If you don't understand Av (6.02*10^23) is a unitless number, and that a mole is that number of items - you missed the point. The important concept that you seem to have skipped its that i's a numeric count, and this is critical for all stoichiometry concepts.

 

[dann]

Cuddles, the mistake made by Darko Suvin is that instead of explaining the concept of science fiction he invents a definition that excludes the majority of what is sold in science-fiction book shops and published in science-fiction magazines:

"It is intrinsically or by definition impossible for SF to acknowledge any metaphysical agency, in the literal sense of an agency going beyond physis (nature). Whenever it does so" (so it obviously does!!!, dann) "it is not SF, but a metaphysical or (to translate the Greek into Latin) a supernatural fantasy-tale." (...) "Thus science is the encompassing horizon of SF, its 'initiating and dynamizing motivation'" (Darko Suvin)

Lester del Rey, however, seems to know that the point of science fiction is that fictitious science, i.e. science fiction works just as well as real science: SF is fairy tales for people who don’t believe in fairies but in science, even false science.
Darko Suvin is the one who is ”looking at a small subset of sci-fi and ignoring all the rest”.
If you’ve read just a little science fiction, you already know that it is full of nonsensical concepts such as telepathy, teleportation etc.

I’ve heard your claim before: that ”neither time travel or faster than light travel are thought to be impossible, they are both unavoidable consequences of general relativity”, but it simply isn’t true:
You might as well claim that since a number of particles are able to pass through walls, people doing the same thing (without using the low-tech door) is ‘unavoidable’, which, of course, it isn’t. So far we’ve managed to ‘avoid’ these consequences, and I wouldn’t bet on our not being able to avoid them for all eternity. What are the odds …

As far as the definition of SF goes, I’ll go with Theodore Sturgeon any time: ”the stuff published in science fiction magazines”. It does not explain the object but delimits it: That is where you find it, that is the object you have to explain. A definition that eliminates 90 % of it in order to make your concept work is silly. Instead of explaining the object of your research, you simply eliminate all the elements that don’t fit your definition. The approach is unscientific.

”Any discussion of sci-fi and its influence on people is doomed (Dooooooomed!) since pretty much no-one agrees on what sci-fi is, or what is sci-fi.”
People also don’t agree on what superstition is. However, that does not doom a discussion (or even an explanation) of it.
Science fiction actually is the “form of the fantastic that denies that it is fantastic”. Whether we can agree on that or not is a very different question.

 

[dann]

Science fiction as a genre is very deep and fascinating, and moreover people seem to have an irrational hatred for it.

Wow! I just love your anecdotes, GreyICE! It's so deep and fascinating, and people who criticize it seem to have an irrational hatred for it.
Isn't that what the woos always tell skeptics who venture to criticize their favourite superstition?!

 

[technoextreme]

(Or nonsensical ones: ‘the stuff published in SF magazines’!)

That's not nonsensical though. It makes perfect sense if one were to get rid of the science and replace the word with speculative because a lot of the genre gets shot away easily if we try and interject the word science into the discussion. I could tell your thesis has problems with it because the sci-fi fandom is tame. Really really tame. Really really really tame. And I can't even fit a genre to the fandom I'm thinking of. It transcends a genre.

 

[GreyICE]

Wow - that's quite an ANECDOTE. Someone here continually and irrelevantly notes anecdotes are pointless as evidence - so we can immediately dismiss your conclusion.

Now the most peculiar thing about this anecdote is that you learned an odd and tautological definition for the mole. A mole of items is just Avogodro's number of items. Where Avogadro's number was determined as the number of C12 atoms in 12 grams. If you don't understand Av (6.02*10^23) is a unitless number, and that a mole is that number of items - you missed the point. The important concept that you seem to have skipped its that i's a numeric count, and this is critical for all stoichiometry concepts.

Yes, I know it's critical for stoichiometry. And yes, I know what it is, thank you very much. The most important thing you can do with them is use them. Because just multiplying with the number is totally worthless.

Now what it does tell you is some very interesting things. But frankly, unless you're measuring the stuff out yourself, it's an absolutely worthless concept.

I chose that anecdote to illustrate a point. I felt this was better than merely relating the point because the anecdote helped demonstrate the point. The point was that Avogadro's Number is in and of itself very useful, but taught the way the schools did is incredibly boring and pointless.

I could also supply some actual evidence.

In sum, this study finds that schools matter because they provide a platform for active, as opposed to passive, teachers. Passive teachers are those who leave students to perform as well as their own resources will allow; active teachers press all students to grow regardless of their backgrounds. Passive teaching involves reducing eighth-grade mathematics to its simplest components. All lessons are at a similar level of abstraction; problems are solved in a single step and admit of a single solution; and all students are treated as if they had entered the class with the same level of preparation and the same learning styles. In contrast, active teaching does justice to the complexities of eighth-grade mathematics. Lessons work at multiple levels of abstraction, from the most mundane problem to the most general theorem; problems involve multiple steps and allow multiple paths to their solution; and teachers tailor their methods to the knowledge and experience of each individual student. Schools that lack a critical mass of active teachers may indeed not matter much; their students will be no less or more able to meet high academic standards than their talents and home resources will allow. But schools that do have a critical mass of active teachers can actually provide a value-added; they can help their students reach higher levels of academic performance than those students otherwise would reach. Through their teachers, then, schools can be the key mechanism for helping students meet high standards.

http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n12/

What I am complaining about is their so-called passive teaching.

See? That constitutes actual evidence that that form of teaching stinks.

Now if you want to continue to compare my statements to Dann's insinuations that Science Fiction readers and Science Fiction fans are all a few steps away from Heaven's Gate cult members, knock yourself out.

No, literally.

 

[GreyICE]

Wow! I just love your anecdotes, GreyICE! It's so deep and fascinating, and people who criticize it seem to have an irrational hatred for it.
Isn't that what the woos always tell skeptics who venture to criticize their favourite superstition?!

Ah, I identify the problem. You clearly have no idea what the word anecdote means. Instead of using dictionary.com you decided to assume you knew what it meant.

1. pl. Unpublished narratives. --Burke.

2. A particular or detached incident or fact of an interesting nature; a biographical incident or fragment; a single passage of private life.

It is often used to conceal some message that is usually unable to be supported by real data. Thus, George Bush will tell an anecdote about how the estate tax cost some poor farmer his home, while failing to mention how nobody could find said farmer, and it mostly seemed to be costing the kids of multi-millionaires a couple yachts. Even when exposed as a bald faced lie, it still resonates with people much better than the statement "The Estate Tax might cost farmer's their homes" to which anyone could reply "But it doesn't."

Here's an example:

Statement:
"Science Fiction fandom is full of cultish lunatics who could do anything. Kill themselves, kill other people, you have no idea."

Anecdotal version:

”Although McVeigh performed well on standardized tests in high school, school and its social life had considerably less appeal for him than his world of guns, fringe movements, and science fiction books.” http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...ghaccount.html

”Science fiction challenged Tim to penetrate beyond the everyday conventions of life, to think his own thoughts and question the world around him.” http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm...ndid=255664979


”We watch a lot of Star Trek, a lot of Star Wars, it's just, to us, it's just like going on a holodeck. We've been training on a holodeck . . . [and] now it's time to stop. The game's over. It's time to put into practice what we've learned.” (Students of Heaven's Gate Expressing Their Thoughts before Exit, March 21, 1997).
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol3/issue3/robinson.html

As we observe, the anecdote makes the statement much more palatable and easy to swallow, though no less offensive, fallacious or inaccurate.

 

[technoextreme]

As we observe, the anecdote makes the statement much more palatable and easy to swallow, though no less offensive, fallacious or inaccurate.

Actually, the more I observe the more it becomes accurate albeit I would use the word eccentric more than anything else. The first quote about McVeigh is applicable enough that you could replace his name with Jamie Hyneman's and it would still be valid. That man owns his television career to something that can only be described as a spinning wok on wheels. A highly dangerous spinning wok on wheels. I fit that quote to a tee which is kind of scary too. I would imagine that it's some mild form of something. This article suggests Asperger's but I have no clue. Either that or it could be a huge case of confirmation bias with myself thrown in.
http://chronicle.com/free/v52/i04/04b00701.htm

 

[GreyICE]

Actually, the more I observe the more it becomes accurate albeit I would use the word eccentric more than anything else. The first quote about McVeigh is vague enough that you could replace his name with Jamie Hyneman's and it would still be valid. That man owns his television career to something that can only be described as a spinning wok on wheels.

Well if we're arguing that fandom is outside the norm, then that's almost a tautology. I mean to be a science fiction fan first you have to be a reasonably accomplished reader. A few books a year isn't cutting it:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/21/AR2007082101045.html

The survey reveals a nation whose book readers, on the whole, can hardly be called ravenous. The typical person claimed to have read four books in the last year _ half read more and half read fewer. Excluding those who hadn't read any, the usual number read was seven.

Then you have to read science fiction. That's putting you into an even smaller category. Science Fiction regularly pegs a 5-10% market share.

Then you have to be a devoted enough fan to go to conventions. That's putting you in, oh, maybe 1% of readers tops?

So yes, self-selected incredibly small minorities are weird, and quite proud of it.

P.S. At least Dann included The Cold Equations in his book. I'm consistently shocked how many people disagree not only with the premise but the actions of the main character. Quite violently too at times.

John Campbell was an odd man, to say the least. But a very, very, very interesting one.

 

[technoextreme]

If you’ve read just a little science fiction, you already know that it is full of nonsensical concepts such as telepathy, teleportation etc.

Yeah and Spider Man is full of nonsensical concepts also!!!!! I mean come on who can hang from a wall like a spider.....

Well if we're arguing that fandom is outside the norm, then that's almost a tautology. I mean to be a science fiction fan first you have to be a reasonably accomplished reader. A few books a year isn't cutting it:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/21/AR2007082101045.html

Then you have to read science fiction. That's putting you into an even smaller category. Science Fiction regularly pegs a 5-10% market share.

Then you have to be a devoted enough fan to go to conventions. That's putting you in, oh, maybe 1% of readers tops?

So yes, self-selected incredibly small minorities are weird, and quite proud of it.

P.S. At least Dann included The Cold Equations in his book. I'm consistently shocked how many people disagree not only with the premise but the actions of the main character. Quite violently too at times.

John Campbell was an odd man, to say the least. But a very, very, very interesting one.

Well I was actually talking about the mad scientist/absent minded professor stereotype of which it's so persuasive that it just so happens to permeate through sci-fi like water goes through a sieve. Im talking about engineers and scientists which brings that number significantly higher.

 

[dann]

Now if you want to continue to compare my statements to Dann's insinuations that Science Fiction readers and Science Fiction fans are all a few steps away from Heaven's Gate cult members, knock yourself out.

Another anecdote - and just as 'illustrative'.
And where exactly do I insinuate that "Science Fiction fans are all just a few steps away from Heaven's Gate cult member"??!

 

[dann]

Ah, I identify the problem. You clearly have no idea what the word anecdote means. Instead of using dictionary.com you decided to assume you knew what it meant.

Ah, I identify the problem! You clearly have no idea what the word anecdote means. Instead of using dictionary.com to learn something new, you decided to assume that you knew what it meant.
It might have helped if, at the same time, you had also looked up the word strawman.
But let me help you:

Here's an example:

Statement:
"Science Fiction fandom is full of cultish lunatics who could do anything. Kill themselves, kill other people, you have no idea."

See?!! It's quite easy: You make up a statement, then you attribute it to your opponent, and if you are delusional enough you'll be able to persuade yourself that you actually proved your point!

'As we observe, the anecdote makes the strawman much more palatable and easy to swallow, though no less offensive, fallacious or inaccurate.'
Congratulations!

 

[GreyICE]

Another anecdote - and just as 'illustrative'.
And where exactly do I insinuate that "Science Fiction fans are all just a few steps away from Heaven's Gate cult member"??!

And why do so many readers of science fiction tend to deny what other fans appear to learn from the genre?

”We watch a lot of Star Trek, a lot of Star Wars, it's just, to us, it's just like going on a holodeck. We've been training on a holodeck . . . [and] now it's time to stop. The game's over. It's time to put into practice what we've learned.” (Students of Heaven's Gate Expressing Their Thoughts before Exit, March 21, 1997).
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol3/issue3/robinson.html

Apparently we're learning how to kill ourselves.

 

[dann]

You are really slow, aren't you?
Let me repeat my question: Where exactly do I insinuate that SF fans are just a few steps away from Heaven's Gate cult members?

Oh, I see! You think that my quotation from the actual Heaven's Gate cult members insinuates that, don't you? (I think that you should look up the word insinuate too!)
Being a scifi fan ("apparently we're (!) learning to kill ourselves") you appear to become paranoid when somebody brings up proof that science fiction does not necessarily inspire people to become engineers (the myth), but sometimes instead turns them on to self-mutilation, suicide or mass murder.

 

[dann]

Yeah and Spider Man is full of nonsensical concepts also!!!!! I mean come on who can hang from a wall like a spider.....

You did notice that! All is not lost!

 

[dann]

P.S. At least Dann included The Cold Equations in his book. I'm consistently shocked how many people disagree not only with the premise but the actions of the main character. Quite violently too at times.

Isaac Asimov "refused to accept the force of the situation" because "spaceflight would develop in such a way that the situation in the story would never be acceptable - or necessary." (Isaac Asimov Presents the Great SF Stories, # 16)

John Campbell was an odd man, to say the least. But a very, very, very interesting one.

For those of you who have no idea what John Campbell has got to do with this: The Cold Equations

 

[GreyICE]

You are really slow, aren't you?
Let me repeat my question: Where exactly do I insinuate that SF fans are just a few steps away from Heaven's Gate cult members?

Oh, I see! You think that my quotation from the actual Heaven's Gate cult members insinuates that, don't you? (I think that you should look up the word insinuate too!)

Yeah, you're right.

You don't insinuate it. You flat out state it. My bad. And yes, in the context you used it in, your anecdote does exactly that.

Being a scifi fan ("apparently we're (!) learning to kill ourselves") you appear to become paranoid when somebody brings up proof that science fiction does not necessarily inspire people to become engineers (the myth), but sometimes instead turns them on to self-mutilation, suicide or mass murder.

And this, folks, is where my problem starts.

Dann has provided no evidence of a causal link between Science Fiction and the Heaven's Gate suicides. Given the number of cult suicides we've seen without Science Fiction, one would believe that he is in a category with the idiots who blame Columbine on Doom.

Certainly if Science Fiction caused suicidal impulses (instead of simply being a focus for mentally disturbed individuals, much like other things throughout the ages have served as focuses for them - self flagellation, People's Temple,etc.) one could easily do a demographic study of science fiction readers and demonstrate this impulse.

Dann has decided to prove his case through anecdote. Now does everyone besides Dann grasp why I've decided to take issue with his interpretation?

Oh and I could start a thread building the case for Christianity causing serial killing with the same amount of anecdotes. I bet I can post an anecdote about a Christian serial killer for every story he finds about a suicide or murder he can pin on 'science fiction.' And at the end of the day, both of us will have proved jack, but at least I could admit that.