Question
What are some ideas for ways we can change American culture, to help people to consider science cool?
Answer
Trying to make something "cool" is an exercise in silliness. It's like certain kinds of Christian Rock, or state-sponsored inspirational movies like the ones by Goebbels in Nazi Germany.
But this silliness is the least of the problems with this proposal.
I like Obama, and I think he is sincere in most of the things he does, but creativity and cultural insight are not his strong suits. The premises of his whole "we want to make science cool" thing are deeply flawed, and the result of an idiotic line of argumentation that goes something like this:
They say an argument is only as strong as the weakest link. In this godawful argument, each link is weaker than the last. I could write a 1000 word essay on each of these flawed arguments, but let's skip that. The only reason this tired joke of an argument keeps cropping up is there are vested interests in the education/research sectors that it benefits, and because there are no mind-expanding alternative arguments on the table at the moment. And no, I don't have one to offer, so this is a purely destructive "call out the bullshit" answer. Not having good answers is not a good reason to let bad ones occupy our minds.
So the question is about tactics to win an impossible battle (making science cool), as part of a bad strategy (growing our way out of our problems) based on a bad doctrine (flawed beliefs about the nature of national competitiveness) and an attempt to execute with a terrible operational model (the existing education system).
In other words, "let's make science cool" as a proposition is wrong on so many levels, I don't even know where to begin. So I'll content myself, after that long preamble, with answering the original question ironically at its face-value.
You cannot make science cool because coolness is not an attribute that meaningfully applies to the study and practice of science. It's like saying "let's use a higher-octane fuel in bananas."
Coolness is an emotional attribute of social behaviors that are based on social proof, like music. The emotions must relate to primal needs like sex, social power/status and the existential need to face death (money can buy the first two in restricted ways). In other words, "cool" only applies to behaviors that can eventually get you laid, get you power over others, or expose you to death risk and win you bad-ass credits (this is the "bad ass" component of the 3-dimensional coolness vector: [sex, power, death]).
This is why being an aerospace engineer is not particularly cool (I am one), but being a fighter pilot is.
That is why James Dean is the archetypal cool guy. He oozed sex appeal, his opinion could raise/lower others' status, and he died young in a car accident, cementing his bad-ass reputation forever.
Behaviors are cool if certain groups of people (not individuals -- social proof takes numbers) practice them, and use them to run the economy of sex, power and death locally. This validation of behaviors as cool is always relative to a specific local culture. The larger the culture, the less likely any culture-wide notion of "cool" is likely to survive. "Coolness" is fundamentally a fragmentary force for reasons having to do with status dynamics. So a large group will inevitably split into smaller groups that define cool in terms of music or motorcycles or dancing, for instance.
Science simply doesn't parse in these terms because it is not based on social proof. It is based on material proof. There is really only one way science can indirectly become cool, and that is by applying its unsentimental eye to the subjects that matter to the coolness-driven social proof cultures. Scientific results on power, sex and death can make any cool group look silly by invalidating some of their consensual beliefs.
So yeah, there is an answer, sort of. You cannot make science cool, but you can use it make cool things look uncool (because most "cool" things have at least a few foundational social proof beliefs around sex, power and death that are just plain wrong -- South Park is great at this process, including taking on certain naive kinds of "scientism" itself).
Just get smart people studying sex, power and death in scientific ways and going around pricking the smug balloons around groups that think they have all the answers to those topics. The balloon prickers will probably not get laid or acquire power/bad-ass reputations by going around pricking balloons, but they will successfully mess with their target groups and have fun trolling them.
But this silliness is the least of the problems with this proposal.
I like Obama, and I think he is sincere in most of the things he does, but creativity and cultural insight are not his strong suits. The premises of his whole "we want to make science cool" thing are deeply flawed, and the result of an idiotic line of argumentation that goes something like this:
- Stage 1, Economic Crisis: "Help, America is becoming uncompetitive as a nation and China will wipe the floor with us!!!"
- Stage 2, Growthism as Solution: "Economic growth is the only way out of our troubles."
- Stage 3, Growth = Jobs: "Create new jobs that can help us compete!"
- Stage 4, "USA! USA!": "Innovation is a unique American strength, and that's where job growth will emerge!"
- Stage 5, Education = Innovation: "Innovation comes from strong math/science education, and our test scores are crap compared to Hong Kong"
- Stage 6, Let's Make Science Cool! "Attract more students to science and math, and get those test scores up. When we beat Hong Kong students in test scores, 3 years later, the economy will be in shape again."
They say an argument is only as strong as the weakest link. In this godawful argument, each link is weaker than the last. I could write a 1000 word essay on each of these flawed arguments, but let's skip that. The only reason this tired joke of an argument keeps cropping up is there are vested interests in the education/research sectors that it benefits, and because there are no mind-expanding alternative arguments on the table at the moment. And no, I don't have one to offer, so this is a purely destructive "call out the bullshit" answer. Not having good answers is not a good reason to let bad ones occupy our minds.
So the question is about tactics to win an impossible battle (making science cool), as part of a bad strategy (growing our way out of our problems) based on a bad doctrine (flawed beliefs about the nature of national competitiveness) and an attempt to execute with a terrible operational model (the existing education system).
In other words, "let's make science cool" as a proposition is wrong on so many levels, I don't even know where to begin. So I'll content myself, after that long preamble, with answering the original question ironically at its face-value.
You cannot make science cool because coolness is not an attribute that meaningfully applies to the study and practice of science. It's like saying "let's use a higher-octane fuel in bananas."
Coolness is an emotional attribute of social behaviors that are based on social proof, like music. The emotions must relate to primal needs like sex, social power/status and the existential need to face death (money can buy the first two in restricted ways). In other words, "cool" only applies to behaviors that can eventually get you laid, get you power over others, or expose you to death risk and win you bad-ass credits (this is the "bad ass" component of the 3-dimensional coolness vector: [sex, power, death]).
This is why being an aerospace engineer is not particularly cool (I am one), but being a fighter pilot is.
That is why James Dean is the archetypal cool guy. He oozed sex appeal, his opinion could raise/lower others' status, and he died young in a car accident, cementing his bad-ass reputation forever.
Behaviors are cool if certain groups of people (not individuals -- social proof takes numbers) practice them, and use them to run the economy of sex, power and death locally. This validation of behaviors as cool is always relative to a specific local culture. The larger the culture, the less likely any culture-wide notion of "cool" is likely to survive. "Coolness" is fundamentally a fragmentary force for reasons having to do with status dynamics. So a large group will inevitably split into smaller groups that define cool in terms of music or motorcycles or dancing, for instance.
Science simply doesn't parse in these terms because it is not based on social proof. It is based on material proof. There is really only one way science can indirectly become cool, and that is by applying its unsentimental eye to the subjects that matter to the coolness-driven social proof cultures. Scientific results on power, sex and death can make any cool group look silly by invalidating some of their consensual beliefs.
So yeah, there is an answer, sort of. You cannot make science cool, but you can use it make cool things look uncool (because most "cool" things have at least a few foundational social proof beliefs around sex, power and death that are just plain wrong -- South Park is great at this process, including taking on certain naive kinds of "scientism" itself).
Just get smart people studying sex, power and death in scientific ways and going around pricking the smug balloons around groups that think they have all the answers to those topics. The balloon prickers will probably not get laid or acquire power/bad-ass reputations by going around pricking balloons, but they will successfully mess with their target groups and have fun trolling them.