Scientific literacy

Today, I saw an article ranting about science educators, arguing that teaching students about science isn't really necessary for scientific literacy. Here's what I wrote in reply:

It's not clear at all what "science literacy" means -- or ought to mean -- but to equate it with "content of modern science" is a particularly depauperate view. Those who advocate for scientific literacy principally want to prepare non-scientists to understand (1) enough about science to know the kinds of questions science can answer and (2) something about the nature of the answers that science can provide. These concepts are not part of science themselves, but are important to understand how scientific knowledge and practice should intersect with other spheres of human endeavor, such as politics, energy policy, and education.

I remember as a graduate student wrestling a lot with the question of what scientific literacy really ought to be. It's a tough, thorny question. Science education is descended from what used to be called "nature study" in the 1800's. In the 1960's, after Sputnik, science education became very focused on producing a new generation of scientists. The idea of "scientific literacy" is really quite new, becoming especially popularized in 1989 in Project 2061: Science for All Americans. Not everyone needs to be conversant with the depths of the history and philosophy of science, but some level of understanding is critical to distinguish scientific understanding from other kinds of ideology -- a proposition that the Bush administration never did understand.