Scientific Literacy

Reinforced by the dismal U.S. performance on the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), deploring our lack of scientific literacy has become quite popular recently. By the broadest definition, more than 90% of Americans are scientifically illiterate—an appalling statistic by anyone's standards and possibly a threat to our well-being. Yet with all this agreement we see astonishing ambiguity—and two different definitions of scientific literacy. The first emphasizes practical results and stresses short-term instrumental good, notably training immediately productive members of society with specific facts and skills. We call this science literacy, with its focus on gaining units of scientific or technical knowledge. Second is scientific literacy, which emphasizes scientific ways of knowing and the process of thinking critically and creatively about the natural world. Advocates of the second assume that it is good to have critical thinkers, that scientific literacy is an intrinsic good—on moral and other principled grounds. Being scientifically literate helps people to live “good” lives (in the philosophers' sense of reflective and fulfilling, and not in the distasteful sense of eating good-for-you bran flakes). According to this view, science is beautiful, exciting, and fun. Becoming scientifically literate produces skeptical, creative habits of mind that are valuable for everyone.