As it is no surprise about the education in the US, science in particular has also been suffering. Last week in the April meeting of the American Physics Society, a group of physicists made precisely this claim. The primary data used in the basis of their argument was the decline in degrees in science. This data is certainly consistent with the argument that the US is falling behind in science. There is no debate that good performance in science predicates the choice of a degree in science. That is to say, the decline in degrees in science is mostly a consequence of poor performance in science earlier–rather than the cause of it. So the natural question is: why are kids less interested in science?
The everyday life of a kid is governed by three structures: school, parents, and other media they encounter (including television, internet, and social structure). It follows that one should be able to attribute the decline in scientific interest to one or more of these structures. Suppose we assume two things: (1) that there is a problem at some generation with respect to science advocacy in some of these components, and (2) that the extent to which kids assimilate to the scientific understanding of their mentors (i.e. parents and teachers) is strictly less than complete (that is, in an abstract isolated teacher-student situation, the student can only learn a proper subset of the teacher’s knowledge). These two assumptions ensure a gradual decline in scientific understanding over the course of future generations.
These assumptions make it no surprise that deficiencies in science can only get worse over time. This only leaves two more questions: how did the deficiency begin, and how can it be fixed? I might take a bold but not entirely unreasonable guess that much of it can be attributed to what I previously called curriculum that is not “readily applicable to everyday situations”. Who is in charge of deciding this curriculum? The answer to this is: precisely those who originally learned this curriculum. So again, it is no surprise why nothing changes. Many point to issues like parenting, television, and other media as the problem. But each of these are easily traceable back to the fact that members of each of these components (parents and media affiliates) had a similar education anyway. This further reinforces the claim that the curriculum itself might need to change.
Now if we change the curriculum, the question of teachers’ ability to implement it arises. This can be addressed with changes in college curriculum that prepare emerging teachers for a new curriculum in the primary and secondary levels. This seems like it might be the first promising step to address the issue in the long run. In an era where governmental budget deficits are high, the appetite for further investment in education (itself a long-term yet critical investment) also seems to be on the decline. It’s no surprise that a fair amount of politicians’ value placed on scientific investment puts it on the back burner in a budget crisis given that a vast majority of them have no background in science to begin with. This is yet another reason that a change in curriculum seems more promising in my mind than further monetary investments in education. And since the payoffs for this will not be immediate, it is all the more reason to begin a change in curriculum now rather than later. If a scientific curriculum tied closer to reality and pragmatic obstacles implants itself in those who will become the future generations, the hope is that this will in turn resolve the future problems associated to the parents, media, and politicians.
I had mentioned before about how philosophy and mathematics used to be equivalent before math diverged by making solid, technical assumptions, and proving what followed. Similarly is the case with regards to astrology and astronomy. Both began by looking for correlation between the stars and X, where X was pretty much any Earthly phenomenon. Then astronomy used counterexamples to the anthropic principle to establish more consistent theories, and astrology was properly buried. Then for some reason in the 20th century horoscopes reincarnated astrology.1 While technically the position of the stars infinitesimally changes the net gravitational force on a human, the fact that cognitive activity is based on electric potentials that globally dominate any infinitesimal net gravitational change on the body renders their study on personality irrelevant.
This being the case, the suffix -logy on astrology seems insulting to the scientific community. The suffix -log means “to speak”.2 Coupled with -y, it takes the meaning of “speaker” which appears to conventionally translate to “generic speaker”, or, “department/field”. Xlogy thus becomes “study/department of X”. In this case, X being astro–deriving from “stars”. At the same time, -nomy derives from “law”. How should we distinguish the two suffixes? We could say Xlogy is the general inquiry into X, which builds upon the object Xnomy. Xnomics could then be reserved for when Xlogy leads to multiple instances of an Xnomy. Hence we should have the following conventional-to-literal semantic assignments:
Astronomy (inquiry component) Astrology
Astronomy (law component) Astronomy.
What would academic departments call themselves then? We could pick the Xlogy form. In this case “economics” would be called “ecology”? The prefix eco- derives from the study of environments of living organisms. In this sense, conventional “economics” is far more abstract than it semantically pretends to be. I would consider something along the lines of
where E derives from something like “token”. Although trade itself may prove to be more fundamental and inherently connected to physics (think conservation of energy). We could then have
which one could plausibly argue. I’m not sure to what we could assign mathematics. It may not even matter since math, physics, and economics may share a fundamental equivalence (all could be construed as structures of symbols=0 volume energy regions=tokens).
 Campion, Nicholas, 2009. A History of Western Astrology, Vol. 2, The Medieval and Modern Worlds. London: Continuum. (via “Astrology” on Wikipedia).