The Need for Science Education

The Importance of Science Literacy

It’s not what we know but rather how we think that is important.

Perhaps the expression most oft uttered in high school science classes across the country is, “why do I need to know this, I will never use this.” And it’s true to a large degree. I am guessing that 90% of Americans don’t need to know how ionic bonding works in metals, what microchondria do in a cell or how harmonic oscillations function. But as science literacy in American’s decreases it is affecting our ability to think critically about issues in not only science but also society. (A lack of science literacy has also hurt the American economy directly, but that is not central to this argument.)

When we think scientifically we observe a phenomina then based on our observations we make a hypothesis. Next we test the hypothesis objectively. We then determine if our test verified or discredited the hypothesis. If the tests supports our hypothesis it becomes a valid theory. This is thinking scientifically, and it can be used by people in many fields, not just scientists. Bankers thinking through an economic problem, a mechanic working through a mysterious car problem and a plumber working through an unpleasant clog to be successful all must think this way, whether they realize it or not. But it’s puzzling how our society does not think scientifically or critically about all topics.


For the past two weeks the sports world has been ablaze, roasting Alex Rodriquez for allegedly testing positive for using steroids from 2001-2003 when he played with the Texas Rangers. Fans our outraged that Alex Rodriquez “cheated” and illegally or unethically increased his home run total by using chemical enhancers. The only problem with this line of thought is that no one has objectively proved that using steroids increases the number of home runs that a player hits.

Let’s think about it scientifically for a minute. We have observed that from the mid 1990’s until about 2003 the number of home runs hit by players increased. We also observed that during this period of times players appeared to increase in size, particularly in muscle mass. Recently we learned that many players from this era were using steroids to increase their muscle mass. Thus we hypothesize that players used steroids to increase their strength and hit more home runs. This is what hundreds of sports columnists and reporters have done in the past few weeks. The only problem is, no one bothered to prove their hypothesis.

In order to be sure that steroids increase home runs we need to test this objectively. We need a control group that did not use steroids, and we need a test group that did. We then need to statistically compare the two groups and determine if the steroids did increase home run totals. (Remember that during the 1990’s baseball expanded rapidly and 48 minor league pitchers became major league pitchers, baseball started playing at stadiums with incredible altitude and ballparks became much, much smaller – there are alternative hypothesis that need testing.)

The tests that have been performed so far suggest that using steroids does not necessarily increase the amount of home runs that you hit. Meanwhile scientifically illiterate announcers, players and columnists continue to report that steroids certainly caused A-Rod to become a great home run hitter. It’s too bad they failed science class, or otherwise they might understand the truth.

We need to work ideas through the scientific method fully to understand the truth. A hypothesis is not a proven theory and it's dangerous to think so (see also risky mortgages). So the next time that someone tells you that a little intelligent design never hurt anyone consider that maybe thinking critically all the way through issues is not optional, it's necessary to know the truth.