I went to the Chris Mooney talk this morning called “Science and Technology Matters: Why Scientific and Technological Literacy is Important” at Hagey Hall.

On my way in I saw Peter. Then I saw Jojo and we sat down in the second row. I later saw Bud, Colphon, Babor, and Renjie and Monica.

Dean of Arts Ken Coates started things off. He used an expression “having our brains exploded.” I think he might have meant “blow your mind” or I just hadn’t heard it before. He said that David Johnston couldn’t be there and cued a prerecorded video of him introducing the talk.

As an illustration of the importance of the topic, Dave said that while most scientists could quote Shakespeare, few in the arts could state the second law of thermodynamics let alone explain it. He also said it was apt that the talk was happening in the Hall of the Humanities.

Chris Mooney was talking to promote his book Unscientific America | How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future

Mooney admitted that his book was U.S.-focused, but since Canada and the U.S. share 5,525 mile long border, “If we are going crazy, you have reason to be worried.”

In his digital slide presentation he reviewed statistics, quotations, and anecdotes, that point to a poor state of science in society and the public discourse. He then suggested a few ways where scientists could be better communicators, become educators and get involved in public policy.

• Now that the reality-based community has returned to Washington, you see more beards at the Whitehouse.
• Stephen Colbert’s truthiness illustrates the division in America: “I don’t trust books. They’re all fact, no heart. And that’s exactly what’s pulling our country apart today. [...] We are divided between those who think with their head, and those who know with their heart.”
• 46 per cent of Americans know that electrons are smaller than atoms (Mooney’s slide had it written the other way around, but he realized it as he read it and a bit later he used it in a quip)
• 18 percent of Americans know a scientist
• Fewer Americans describe scientific achievements among the country’s greatest achievements 47% in 1999 compared to 27 per cent this year.
• Cultural appreciation of science boomed in 1950s and 1960s while now it is in steep decline. (He had a photo of Sputnik in that slide, relevant to Waterloo, founded in 1957, the year Sputnik reached space.
• When asked to name a scientific role model American were most likely to name Albert Einstein, Al Gore, and Bill Gates. One of them is dead, and the other two aren’t scientists.
• He said Carl Sagan the “greatest science communicator of his generation” was snubbed by the National Academy of Science in 1992
• C.P. Snow in Britain referred to a “gulf of mutual incomprehension” between literary intellectuals and scientists.
• He said scientists rely on surrogates to communicate science, educators and journalists.

Only 7% of PhDs under 35 years of age get tenure-track positions, Mooney suggested that there be new valves in the pipeline. People need to be able to pusue new opportunities rather than working towards a professorship many will not get. He suggested offer transition years for PhDs to go into education or connecting them with policy fellowships to which he links from his blog.

In the question period, there were about a half dozen questions. Dean Ken opened by asking about The Big Bang Theory. Mooney said that he was noticing more instances of positive depictions of scientists, but they are often still portrayed as socially awkward.

Someone at the back asked about whether there is stigma for those who go out the “valves.” A woman in our row asked what can be done for people like those in her poor neighbourhood in East L.A. (she now is working towards a PhD in physics). Mooney acknowledged that education is a bigger challenge than just for science, but that grade school education needs to be better so that more students can be in a position to pursue scientific studies.

I am reading a book that explains common misunderstandings and fallacies that people have about economics. It is called Filthy Lucre: Economics For People Who Hate Capitalism written by Joseph Heath, a U of T philosophy professor.

I am just past halfway through it and it has been very enlightening. I knew some of the economic material already, but the examples and arguments have all been good. I think it would be worthwhile to write a book summary.

One of the points I found particularly interesting was his argument for for-profit shareholder organizations being superior to others like co-operatives. Simply put, he argues that shareholders generally have a common purpose, but members of a co-operative can be divided by competing interests.

He writes that co-operatives work best when the input from the members is homogeneous and that shareholders input of capital is totally homogeneous.

Quite simply, it means that internal fighting within a co-operative often becomes so corrosive, or the place becomes so badly run, that it becomes in everyone’s interest to hand ownership over to a group of relative outsiders, who will be able to make business decisions in a more impartial manner and to impose them more effectively. That group is the shareholders.
— Filthy Lucre by Joseph Heath

That argument is interesting to me, because, in my mind, I want co-operatives and non-profits to be superior structures, though I recognize some inefficiencies.

It is also interesting because Magda and I are researching alternative business models for news publishing and one of our organizations of interest is the St. Petersburg Times.

The Times is for-profit but owned by the Poynter Institute, a charity. The company’s chairman, who leads the organization and also votes all the charity’s ownership shares, chooses his successor.

The first such chairman was picked by the owner, Nelson Poynter, who donated his shares to the institute and set up the whole system in the first place.

Poynter thought a single ultimate decision maker was best and this structure perpetuates the “single-owner.”

Similar organizations like Scott Trust Limited, publisher of the Guardian, and Torstar, Toronto Star owner, have multiple people at the top, the Scott Trust board or the Voting Trust, which could open things up to politics and conflict.

It is interesting to consider where a shareholder structure or enlightened single-owner setup might be better in getting good works done.

Waterloo is asking for feedback on the old-new and two new-new logos. But the newly introduced ones are bad enough to make me think that they want us to dislike the controversial one a little less.

Waterloo, according to our Sixth Decade Plan, has a bold future. The university wants to be a global leader in a number or areas and expand our international connections so we can help build a better future for Canada and the world.
[...]
Our logo needs to show our spirit of innovation and creativity, of moving forward and of making the future. Also, keep our risk-taking and unconventional spirit in mind and consider if these logos reflect who we are and whether it hints at what we want to become.
— Logo Feedback UW

It is good that they are getting feedback, but the alternatives they present don’t give me much confidence. Aside from the crazy colours, I think the sparky W is the best of the three.

It is orientation week at Waterloo and it is getting freshmanic.It turns out that freshmanic actually is a word.

Several thousand first-year students at the University of Waterloo will kick off their higher education careers next week with a slew of activities designed to help them make a successful transition from high school to university.

Orientation week, involving over 1,100 upper-year student volunteers, helps the newcomers begin the transition from high school to university. The six-day program, which begins Monday, Sept. 7, offers a balance of academic information and social events for the first- year class, expected to number about 6,000 students.
— 6, 000 new students will orient to campus life at University of Waterloo 2 Sep 2009

• Comments Off

I stumbled on the the Jesse H. Jones Graduate School of Business website while doing research for an upcoming interview.

Interestingly the Rice University coat of arms is similar in structure to that of Waterloo except the charges of lions rampant are owls.

The promo window has a photo of a studious coed with the phrase: “How will you change the world?”

It answers the question with these inspirational phrases, but not the obvious suffphrase “at Rice | Jones.”

• Groundbreaking Research
• Diversity in Action
• Business principles grounded in sound ethics
• Intensive Learning Experiences
• Compelling curriculum
• Engage your Entrepreneurial Spirit
• Rigorous Curriculum
• Interactive Classes

Maybe they could have saved a slide by saying “Rigorous and compelling curriculum.”

It is interesting to take a look at this bumf language without much other context. It looks like the school is trying something worthwhile, but the communications makes it look hackneyed and insipid.

The welcome letter from the dean opens with: “As a school whose mission focuses on developing principled, innovative thought leaders in global communities…”

I have heard it before and I think I will soon begin to dislike the mention of “thought leaders.”

• Inspirational banners at Waterloo 3 Nov 2008

Magda had an article in the Star yesterday from her trip to Poland. She wrote about Warsaw’s Palace of Culture and Science and how how today’s post-communist Poles view it.

The palace evokes a range of emotion. But it’s a living monument to a bygone system, and it’s grown into the city. Here you can view Warsaw from above, visit the opulent Congress Hall, where the Polish Communist party met annually, take in a play, go for a swim or get a university degree.
– What to do with Warsaw’s `palace’? Toronto Star 3 Sep 2009

The imposing building, once named for Stalin, stands 231 metres high. When it was built the next highest building was 66 metres.

• The palace in the centre of town magdak.ca 21 Apr 2009