With regards to the continuation of a space program I don’t think communication about the science of space exploration will be enough. Scientists need to communicate a paradigm shift; the idea that space exploration should be less anthropocentric. The question I will be addressing in this blog is how can scientists communicate a change in scientific paradigm that is not anthropocentric?
By taking people out of the equation and sending up small inexpensive machines to explore space for us, we drastically reduce the cost of exploration and provide much more efficient exploration. We have come to a point in our evolution where we don't need our own eyes to see what's our there. The challenge of communicating this kind of science is that it doesn't jive with the typical mindset people have about space exploration. As we defined in class a mindset is a fixed state of mind or mental rigidity. In particular the mindset most people have about space exploration is probably close to whatever was portrayed in the space science fiction movie they like most. Whether it's Captain Kirk on the enterprise or Dr. Who in his little blue box there's always the theme that people have to actively be a part of the exploring process. Since this theme is so deeply embedded in out culture it will be difficult to even suggest the idea that space exploration shouldn't be so anthropocentric. Which is understandable because it essentially forces people to give up the hope of being the next Kirk (at least within our lifetime). This brings to light another of our course concepts which is science as a social enterprise which we defined as the idea that science is influenced by social intentions. So how do we convince people to support a science that is so far detached from anything they can relate to on a personal level? Famous theoretical physicist Michio Kaku actually does an excellent job of this.
In short, once we get self-replication nanobots, we can send swarms into space that will then travel to thousands of potential planet to begin terraforming them so they will be fit for habitation one we figure out a more efficient way of sending actual people into space. This technology has already been developed HERE.
However, I would point out that this technology would be one that would also be very useful on our own planet. The point being that instead of focusing on making large scale devices fit for humans, we should direct funding towards projects and research that support the general idea of miniaturization and automation.
To answer my question posed in the beginning, we can analyze some of the techniques Kaku used in his video. By using very human centered examples and explanations, such as ice skating metaphors, he was able to connect to people on a much more human level to inspire awe. Even in his explanation of the mechanism for launching swarms into deep space he used a simple lab experiment using materials people had lying around. Any curious mind could try that experiment in their kitchen and those less ambition would still certainly understand but still be fascinated by the abnormal behavior demonstrated. Although this isn't officially a course concept I definitely believe that identification should be one. I will define identification with regards to communication as the ability of a scientists to relate to something the general public knows to a scientific concept in a metaphorical manner. The societal implication is that scientists that can identify with people's everyday lives like Michio Kaku will be able to effectively communicate and encourage the support of sciences that would normally seem very far removed from any individual in their audience. The new question this raises, is what is the best way to identify with people's everyday lives? And for those scientists that otherwise lack the caliber of imagination to do so, what would be a good recipe they could follow? What methods can our school use to encourage this sort of metaphorical science communication?
References:
