This is an optional task for B2-C1 or higher level students. At this level the learner should be able to read academic, scientifiс or classical literature. You may skip it and move on to the next section.
If you decide to try your abilities, please read the text below and answer the questions.
Why people think scientists know everything.
Neuroscientist Dean Burnett considers the reasons why people often have the wrong idea about science and scientists.
One unexpected aspect of being a scientist is the weird questions you get asked by non-scientists. Whilst publicising my latest book, I've been asked many questions. Among my favourites is: "Which are smarter, tigers or wolves?' As a neuroscientist, I'm not trained to answer this (assuming an answer even exists). Obviously, if I'm going to put myself out there as an authority on things, then I should expect questions. However, this happened to me even before I became a public figure, and other scientists I've spoken to report similar, regular occurrences. It's just something people do, like meeting a doctor at a party and asking them about a rash. If you're a scientist, people assume you know all science, something which would require several lifetimes of study. In truth, most scientists are, just like experts in any other field, very specialist. If you meet a historian who specialises in 19th-century Britain, asking them about ancient Egyptians is illogical. Maybe this does happen to historians. I can't say. It happens to scientists though. So where does this 'scientists know all science' preconception come from?
Because my area of interest is the human brain, I tend to blame it for many of life's problems. For example, the way in which it handles information could lead to this idea of the all-knowing scientist. Our brain has to deal with a lot of information, so it often uses shortcuts. One of these is to clump information together. While functionally useful, you can see how this would lead to inaccuracies or even prejudices. If someone struggles to understand science, in their heads it all gets lumped together as 'stuff I don't understand'. The same goes for scientists, who may get labelled as 'people who understand things I don't'. Education also plays a role. The study of science gets more specific the further you progress, but at a young age you get taught what's called simply 'science'. So you begin with this notion that science is just one subject, and have to gradually figure out otherwise. Would it be surprising then, if many people never really move on from this perception due to a disinterest in science, and consequently continue to regard scientists as interchangeable?
The way in which scientists are portrayed in the media doesn't help either. Any new discovery or development reported in the press invariably begins with "Scientists have discovered…" or 'According to scientists…". You seldom get this in any other field. The latest government initiative does not begin with 'Politicians have decided…". If any study or finding worth mentioning is invariably attributed to all scientists everywhere, it's understandable if the average reader ends up thinking they're all one and the same. The press also love the idea of the 'lone genius'. The story of a scientific discovery typically focuses on a single, brilliant intellectual, changing the world via his or her all-encompassing genius. While this makes for an inspiring narrative and therefore sells newspapers, it's far from the collaborative effort which most science is the result of. In fiction too, we constantly encounter the stand-alone genius who knows everything about everything, usually in very helpful and plot-relevant ways. This is bound to rub off on some people in the real world.
Of course, this whole thing would be easier if it weren't for actual scientists making matters worse. Some, maybe unintentionally, make declarations about other fields which don't agree with what the evidence says. I've even done it myself occasionally. In popular science books, it's not uncommon for the author to stray into areas that they aren't that familiar with but which need to be addressed in order to provide a coherent argument. Sadly, you also get the scientists who, having achieved influence and prestige, start to believe their own press and end up making declarations about fields beyond their own, using confidence instead of actual awareness of how things work. Because such people have a public platform, the public assumes they must be right. The fact is that if scientists really did know everything, they'd know how to put an end to the misconceptions about their professions. But they don't. So they don't.