The results from this weekend's question are in: "What is the one concept in science that you really think should be explained better to a wide audience?" I tried to collate the answers from Twitter and Facebook as well as here, at least up to the point where my patience evaporated. Answers below the fold, grouped into three categories: big concepts, specific ideas, and meta issues. Scott Aaronson wrote, "The skill of sharpening a question to the point where it could actually have an answer." Which is a skill I should probably try to develop myself, as the question I asked was amenable to different interpretations. Many people answered "evolution," but as Ed Yong pointed out on Twitter, evolution is actually explained quite well in many places. So when we ask what needs to be explained better, there are at least two issues at work: what we actually do a bad job at explaining, and what doesn't succeed at penetrating out into the public consciousness. In contrast with evolution, for example, I would say that quantum mechanics is explained in many places, but very rarely is it explained well. The winner by a wide margin was the meta issue of "the scientific method." Which raises another question: do we agree on what the scientific method is? I suspect not. But I am completely on board with the idea that "how science works" is not explained very well, and possibly a higher priority than any particular scientific concept. Others that did well: evolution, statistics, certainty/uncertainty, entropy, quantum mechanics, time, and gravity. I cannot refrain from pointing out that these last four were all addressed at some length in From Eternity to Here. Which makes me think that what people are really saying is, "more folks should read Sean's book." Only 40 more shopping days 'till Xmas... Also of note is that there wasn't actually a great deal of consensus; the list of concepts that came up is quite long. Clearly we need to do a better job of explaining. Here are the answers: Big:
Evolution (IIIIIIIIII)
Entropy/Second Law (IIIIII)
Quantum mechanics (IIII)
Time (IIII)
Gravity (IIII)
Genetics (III)
Supply and demand
Energy
Climate change
Math
Cognition
Complexity
Emergence
Quantum field theory
Specific:
Renormalization (III)
Scale of the universe (III)
F***ing magnets (III)
Curvature of spacetime (II)
Deep time (II)
Particle/wave duality (II)
Gyroscopes
Cancer biology
Wave equation
The Big Bang
Entanglement
Deformation and torsion
Radiation
Force-carrying particles
Toddler psychology
Superposition
The holographic principle
Seasons
The double-slit experiment
Decoherence
String theory
Cognitive biases
Cognitive illusions
Expansion of space
Goedel's incompleteness theorem
Comparative advantage
Spin 1/2
Computational equivalence
Laws of thermodynamics
Principle of least action
Fusion energy
Weak interactions
Price equation
Black body radiation
Comparative advantage
Effective field theory
Chirality
Bell's theorem
Gears
Climate vs. weather
Arrow of time
Conservation of energy
Free will
Tides
Membrane theory
Particle accelerators
Speed of light
Exponents
Meta:
The scientific method (IIIIIIIIIIIIII)
Statistics (IIIIIIII)
Certainty/uncertainty (IIIIII)
Falsifiability/testability (II)
Time scales
Comparing tiny numbers
Scientists
Occam's razor
Theory
Confidence intervals
Evidence vs. anecdotes
Experimentation
Peer review
Basic research
Null results
Science doesn't prove things
