Following a PBC-OBE link-bait title, Sylvia McLain reminds us that the inductive methodology underpinning technical modernity should be appreciated:

“Just like great works of art, basic scientific research should be thought of as an essential component of a modern society.”

I’m not convinced this point needs making. Do the public widely hold art above science in 2013? I can understand cultural bigots supporting science over art - and maybe as a scientist I’m too close to the metal here - but do science luddites even exist anymore?

Similar to Tom Chivers a fortnight ago, McLain supports the idea that dictating scientific facts (e.g. the second law of thermodynamics) constitutes towards a scientifically literate society. Ironically, when referencing the importance of modern technology, McLain subsequently acknowledges that technical progress itself has made fact-based discussion redundant:

“I do at times miss those slightly drunken debates about things like, "No, Tom Cruise wasn't in Dances with Wolves, it was that guy – you know, the guy that was in Bull Durham." We can't have those anymore, because someone inevitably has an iPhone or a Blackberry and goes to looks it up – end of debate.”

The same redundancy is true for scientific ‘facts’.

Knowing the second law of thermodynamics does not make one ‘scientifically literate’. A homeopath with access to Wikipedia can look up the second law. Literacy of the scientific method is what’s missing.