Does science fiction help kids learn to like science?

[GreyICE]

Actually the study concluded or expired in July so it should be or is already available.
The second is an essay with anecdotes. The third was a report which stated that there were women who were inspired to thier career by scienfiction.

Realize that a study of this nature necessarily has to build its statistics on anecdotes, or specifically, personal anecdotes. When a scientists or engineer goes on record to say that he was influence by science fiction in the direction of his choice of career, that is a data point in such a study. How else would you gather that kind of data?

Rather simply. I'd do a long-term study of 100 or so randomly selected children who were readers (defined as 20 or more books per year), compile a list of books they read, and then analyze said list by amount, genre, etc. Start with them at age 12, and end at age 22. Do a followup 5 and 10 years after graduation to see what their reading habits were, and what career paths they followed. Compare it to a demographically similar group as well as the general population.

Studies like this are immensely powerful in determining useful long-term trend data and educational usefulness. They are reasonably hard to perform however.

Less rigorous, but also scientifically based studies could be devised.

There are scientists and engineers who have gone on record to say so.
Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, Herman Oberth, Robert Goddard, and Werner Von Braun have stated in biographies and interviews to have been inspired by Jules Verne.
http://www.meaus.com/spacePioneer.html
http://inventors.about.com/od/bstartinventors/a/Von_Braun.htm
http://www.amazon.com/Robert-Goddard-Unlocking-Secrets-Science/dp/1584151072

And Scientists have even become science fiction writers. i.e. Isaac Asimov and Author C. Clark.


Well that report in the first link is defintely a study concerning the link between science fiction and directions in careers.

As mentioned before a study of this nature would necessarily rely on personal anecdotes from scientists who would relate thier experiances concerning science fiction and thier choices of careers.

I do not find that it is ever necessary to rely on anecdotes.

 

[uruk]

Rather simply. I'd do a long-term study of 100 or so randomly selected children who were readers (defined as 20 or more books per year), compile a list of books they read, and then analyze said list by amount, genre, etc. Start with them at age 12, and end at age 22. Do a followup 5 and 10 years after graduation to see what their reading habits were, and what career paths they followed. Compare it to a demographically similar group as well as the general population.

Studies like this are immensely powerful in determining useful long-term trend data and educational usefulness. They are reasonably hard to perform however.

Less rigorous, but also scientifically based studies could be devised.


I do not find that it is ever necessary to rely on anecdotes.

You could defintetly find a objective correlation if scientists and engineers showed a greater propensity to read science fiction. But a career like science or engineer is a concious choice, considering all the specific education required. You would ultimately have to ask them if they felt they were influenced by science fiction in order to verify. I mean you could always have the odd ball who really liked science fiction but felt that it did not, at least conciously, influence his choice in careers.
Or the person who really likes science fiction and chose to go into banking or underwater basket weaving.

Just putting that out there.

 

[GreyICE]

You could defintetly find a objective correlation if scientists and engineers showed a greater propensity to read science fiction. But a career like science or engineer is a concious choice, considering all the specific education required. You would ultimately have to ask them if they felt they were influenced by science fiction in order to verify. I mean you could always have the odd ball who really liked science fiction but felt that it did not, at least conciously, influence his choice in careers.

Just putting that out there.

But what people feel is the absolute WORST judge of what influences them that I can possibly imagine.

Here's just one tiny example. For years, various people studying prisoners were preaching the evils of porn. They did dozens of studies showing rapists blamed pornography, ect.

Then someone said "Hey, what if, I dunno, people are bad at self-examination?" Yup, turns out they on the whole are actually exposed to porn at a slightly older age, and porn viewing has no correlation with rape.

There are dozens of these things. People absolutely LOVE to assign causation where it doesn't exist. Meanwhile they will absolutely insist that causation doesn't exist where statistically something funky is going on.

A good look at how reading habits shaped kids lives would use the objective information of what books they read, and how that evolved and eventually how their life turned out.

A good example is TV. Most kids would say they're not influenced by what they see on TV. Statistically, that's highly unlikely to be true. Most people say they aren't very influenced by TV ads. Statistically, do you honestly think that's true? People don't judge themselves well.

 

[dann]

Ted Sturgeon's is the most objective and accurate if you just add "and novels sold and marketed as Science Fiction" to it.

However, Sturgeon does not even try to explain what it is.

As for the quote from Dann's thesis, a good example of why academic writing is held in so little respect. One would think that people studying literature would have a more graceful style, but English Professors have been responsible for some of the worst prose ever written.
And it reeks of Deconstructionism, the biggest intellectual con of recent years.

No deconstructionism, and abstracts are not meant to be graceful but to compress as much information as possble into very few lines.

 

[dann]

But Verne correctly predicted the shape a space capsul would have to have, and also predicted that a moon shot would have to be made from a limited choice of latitude and longitude. His choice of Florida was, of course, dead on . And it was not from gueswork, but logic and factual information.
Give the man a little credit.

Nobody is discrediting Jules Verne. He did not predict the future, he was a writer of fiction, science fiction. As such he did research, to get the "fetish stuff" right. (JK Rowling does research for her books, too!) If he had been a scientist you could discredit him for getting the science wrong. Verne's projectile, however, did not kill anybody, not even his fictitious characters - which it would have in reality.

 

[dann]

Of course then you might associate the fact that everyone is avoiding you in the real world with your style of discourse.

The fact??! If I didn't already know that you have a hard time distinguishing between fact and fiction ...

 

[dann]

The literature does not inspire them, they find the inspiration in the literature.

Yes, they do find inspiration in the literature. If they didn't, it would not have inspired them!

 

[dann]

Look, it's just a general group-insult thing. If I was talking about how great clowns are and all you wanted to do was talk about John Wayne Gacy I'd be pissed in exactly the same way. You have some points but yeah, bringing up all the sad folks in fandom is just going to make half of everyone *else* in fandom feel defensive. How would it not?

So let's eliminate all the sad folks from the discussion and focus on all the alleged wonderful achievements of science fiction: It turns people into scientists, it makes them happy, confident, optimistic about the future and ready to accept change with the flexibility of mind that only staunch SF readers can display.
Only a negligible minority uses the genre as escapism, but they probably aren't proper SF readers anyway. If they were, they wouldn't ...
I.e. let's ignore everything that doesn't cheer them up because we wouldn't want them to become defensive, right?! I mean, that's the way we deal with woos, isn't it?!

Come on, Lithrael, get real!

I'm a scifi reader, I've read more than most, and yet it does not upset me to read about the Heaven's Gate, Timothy McVeigh and L Ron Hubbard! Why should it make me feel defensive?!! Why should it make me go into denial?!

 

[dann]

Of course then you might associate the fact that everyone is avoiding you in the real world with your style of discourse.

(It just occurred to me: Is it because of the way the American highschool system seems to be organized as a kind of popularity contest that you so often hear the argument that 'if you continue like this you may risk becoming unpopular'.)

 

[GreyICE]

(It just occurred to me: Is it because of the way the American highschool system seems to be organized as a kind of popularity contest that you so often hear the argument that 'if you continue like this you may risk becoming unpopular'.)

Wouldn't know. Never went to American high school.

Any chance you want to address the fact that you handwaved an incident that demonstrably happened, or are you so trapped in your opinion that you can't possibly address the fact that it's wrong?

 

[dann]

Are you really sure that you want to address all the instances of handwaving in this thread?!

 

[Lithrael]

So let's eliminate all the sad folks from the discussion and focus on all the alleged wonderful achievements of science fiction: It turns people into scientists, it makes them happy, confident, optimistic about the future and ready to accept change with the flexibility of mind that only staunch SF readers can display.
Only a negligible minority uses the genre as escapism, but they probably aren't proper SF readers anyway. If they were, they wouldn't ...

I think that is what they call the straw man. I agree there are plenty of people who extend their hobbies into obsessions and/or unhealthy obsessions. Plenty. Lots. Many. A whole bunch. Some of them are even crazy. I just don't think it's actually horrible for someone to want to go to a convention with some friends and wear Spock ears. Heaven forbid anyone just have some fun.

What is actually your point? Just that sci-fi is for the most part merely entertainment? Because I agree with that wholeheartedly. That entertainment is bad? But I *like* entertainment... So it seems like you are calling something I like, bad, so yes, I am defensive.

Or is it just that sad fans should... should what? What should they do, instead of getting into a sci-fi-fandom niche that they enjoy? I mean, when I criticise a woo for liking homeopathy, it's because I think they should be using real medicine instead. Not just because they're having fun with something useless. People have fun with useless things all the time and I have no problem whatever with that, as long as they're not fooling themselves out of 'better' pursuits.

So is your issue with sci-fi fans, simply that many of them lack the candour to see they are having fun with something useless? What actually is your point?

I'm a scifi reader, I've read more than most, and yet it does not upset me to read about the Heaven's Gate, Timothy McVeigh and L Ron Hubbard! Why should it make me feel defensive?!! Why should it make me go into denial?!

The facts don't make me defensive, and I don't even know what you're talking about with denial. Your attitude makes me defensive. You piss me off.

 

[GreyICE]

Are you really sure that you want to address all the instances of handwaving in this thread?!

Another non-answer from mr. issues.

 

[technoextreme]

”moronically”??! You are too full of yourself for your own good, tecnobabble!
You do realize that there’s a very big difference between “Beam me up, Scotty” and “Entangled particles can therefore be used to "teleport" information”, i.e. between teleportation and “teleport” in quotation marks and only of information, don't you?!
Well, I guess that you probably don’t know the difference … which is a little … not moronic, but ignorant.

You reading comprehension is horrible. I said analog. Analog means similar. Similar doesn't mean the same thing. This has been your daily English lesson. That I was calling your remarks moronic about spider man.

 

[Cathy]

Dann said (a bunch of posts ago):

No, I don't think that escapism is a good thing!...
You need to find out what is wrong with either the world or yourself and then try to bring about the change that solves the problem.

I had been using the word escapism to mean a rather mild, moderate version of the meaning. Looking the word up in a dictionary, I see that it can be used without modification to indicate an unhealthy amount of escape-from-reality. I probably would do better to switch my defense of escapism to another word such as entertainment or diversion.

An online dictionary fetched me these definitions of escapism:

I. an inclination to retreat from unpleasant reality, for example through fantasy--Collins Essential English Dictionary 2nd Edition 2006 © HarperCollins Publishers 2004, 2006

II.1. the state of having wandering and imaginative thoughts in order to escape from reality.
2. the practice of engaging in activities that enable one to avoid having to deal with reality, as the persistent attendance at science-fiction films, reading of fantasy literature, etc.

It cracked me up that science-fiction films and fantasy literature were the examples used in the last definition!

I still think that when we indulge in entertaining diversions, not to mention diverting entertainments, we are often afforded a bit of an escape from our everyday life; I think a small amount of this "escapism," balanced of course with involvement and coping with reality, can be healthy.

Dann said that, rather than indulging in escapism, we should try to bring about change for the things that are wrong, but that is not always possible. For instance, one of my daughters has many life-altering and painful chronic medical problems. I tried for years to change that fact (getting a diagnosis, or two or three or ten, and treatments), and I have tried to accept the fact; right now I am walking a careful line between helping her to continue to seek for answers and relief from the medical world and also accepting reality. But a little escapism, once in a while, is also a great thing.

I don't know if you have kids, Dann. If you do, maybe you "get" why a minor flirtation with escapism can be a good thing.

 

[dann]

A little opium once in a while, is also a great thing, for the right condition. I've had it twice in my life and on the two occasions I very much appreciated the temporary escape from bodily sensations it offered. And your point is valid. However, the fans I quoted don’t seem to be in need of painkillers. I even believe the fan (with a fairly big toy dragon on her shoulder) who tells us that in her case the escapism offered by Anne McCaffrey may have been good for her. I don't know.
You also don't appear to think that people using SF as escapism are fleeing from intolerable pain. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with "diverting entertainments". People who enjoy those, however, would not usually get upset if somebody reminded them that a mass-murderer happened to like one of their favourite movies. It doesn't even seem to bother readers of The Catcher in the Rye that at least one celebrity killer was a fan.
The scifi fans, however, ...

 

[dann]

I just don't think it's actually horrible for someone to want to go to a convention with some friends and wear Spock ears.

Does anybody think it's horrible?

What is actually your point? Just that sci-fi is for the most part merely entertainment? (...) That entertainment is bad? (...) Or is it just that sad fans should... should what? What should they do, instead of getting into a sci-fi-fandom niche that they enjoy? (...) So is your issue with sci-fi fans, simply that many of them lack the candour to see they are having fun with something useless? What actually is your point?

The facts don't make me defensive, and I don't even know what you're talking about with denial. Your attitude makes me defensive. You piss me off.

Why become defensive and be pissed off by something you don't seem to understand at all? You seem to be going the way of GreyICE: inventing insinuations and getting all worked up about them.

 

[Diamond]

I never learned science from science fiction, nor did it particularly interest me to do so. I find science fiction to be mainly fantasy fiction set in a cod-medieval world (or worlds) of the future rather than a cod-medieval world set in the past. Projecting the past into the future is almost the dominant paradigm in SF, ranging from the projection of Greek Myths into the future (Star Trek, Star Wars) to the old American West [itself a creation of fantasy fiction] into the Future (Firefly, Battlestar Galactica) to political satires (Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy etc)

I find the conventions of science fiction to be the most annoying. Dressing up faster than light travel/wormholes/time travel to be anything other than magical plot devices similar to the cod-medieval use of magic spells and potions is to be delusional. Whatever they may be, they are not scientific nor do they teach much science.

There are hard science fiction stories which are much more interesting, but they are rare in the genre.

Reflecting on Cathy's remarks about science at school, I found myself thinking that I too learned a lot of science, but almost nothing of the scientific method which I could use to analyze many more types of phenomena that that which happened in a test-tube.

I did not know about double-blind testing or any method to check or falsify a particular proposition.

Chemistry was taught as the interaction between various substances, not as an analytical tool. Physics was taught as a way to understand simple cause-and-effects in Newtonian terms, without comprehension to the broad understanding of the natural world. Biology was, well, stamp-collecting and sex, usually asexual.

All of this lack of knowledge about the scientific viewpoint (I admit, from people who probably didn't understand it either) made me prey to irrationalism in the form of religious beliefs. I have slowly recovered from that experience.

The other aspect to fantasy fiction of all kinds (including SF kinds) is the strong current of religious beliefs that are being transmitted. It doesn't have to be as obvious as the "Left Behind" series to be religious in nature. I sometimes wonder if science fiction isn't just a sub-genre of religious themes as espoused by the writings of CS Lewis or JRR Tolkein. The conversations that I have had with fans of SF certainly suggests that the minutiae of SF series is a near exact match for the proliferation of commentaries and concordances on the Bible and biblical subjects that I remember from my religious era.

With all of these things, my broad brush inevitably invites counterexamples. I do not make the case that all of SF is worthless, or all of SF is religious in nature or all of SF is a projection from mythical times past to mythical future.

But most SF does not lead to an appreciation of science. It is a form of storytelling which can be compelling, but its connection to science is for the most part, tenuous.

 

[dann]

A voice of reason. Thank you, Diamond!
And there are settings in science fiction that are even worse than 'cod-medieavalism':
Starship Troopers versus Starship Stormtroopers.

 

[Lithrael]

Why become defensive and be pissed off by something you don't seem to understand at all? You seem to be going the way of GreyICE: inventing insinuations and getting all worked up about them.

It's true I'm reacting to my impression of your position and making leaps based on your attitude. Your actual facts and quotes, if they were in a different context, would seem fine to me. So it appears I have misinterpreted your intent due to my being generally pissed off, and what looked to me like your glee about pissing people off. Perhaps if you had said what you meant at the beginning instead of just posting a lot of quotes from con-going types and following that up with more quotes from dangerously unbalanced people.

ETA: I pretty much agree with Diamond too.