10-Pounds of Knowledge in a 5-pound Sack

We are facing a serious problem today is getting the information that we need to make the right decisions to impact our lives. The problem is not that we can’t find the information, it is there is too much information to wade through. Too much of what we don’t need to see (distractions), too much of what is not really true or lacks the right context (fake news), just too much bad news that affect my mental health (journalist are especially good at this angle), just too much input with too high a noise level. It seems like everyone has attention-deficit disorder. Elon Musk’s company Neuralink is trying to create an interface from the computer straight to the human brain and has already succeeded with Gertrude the pig (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53956683 ). Is that the solution? The information economy Is running amuck.

And we are paying the price. We are retreating to our own information bubbles, listening only to the voices we trust, rejecting good perspective from the other side and taking in too much bull from our side. I have limited my TV news watching time as I found I was getting depressed by it. It isn’t fake but it is depressing. ?How can it be breaking news if you have been repeating the same story for the last week?

As someone with the perspective and biases of an oilfield veteran, I am concerned that too many folks want to turn the Energy Transition message into a “keep-it-in-the-ground” or fossil fuels have no role to play in the energy transition conclusion. It used to be that we had the same information (from many fewer sources – Walter Cronkite where are you when we need you) but could have our own opinions. When good old Walter signed off his new broadcast with “and that is the way it is” most of us believed him. I did as a kid growing up watching him. Now we have different opinions and search out information that supports those divided causes. Too few bridge-builders, to many that want to widen the divide.

For the forces of data and science, we also have a problem. In a 2019 Pew Research study they found “While confidence in scientists overall tilts positive, people’s perspectives about the role and value of scientific experts on policy issues tends to vary. Six-in-ten U.S. adults believe that scientists should take an active role in policy debates about scientific issues, while about four-in-ten (39%) say, instead, that scientists should focus on establishing sound scientific facts and stay out of such debates.” Forty percent is a big number and social media trends favor opinion over science. Just stay in your lab and write research papers that a few will ever read and fewer still will understand. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/02/12/key-findings-about-americans-confidence-in-science-and-their-views-on-scientists-role-in-society/ ?They also found “overall, a 63% majority of Americans say the scientific method generally produces sound conclusions, while 35% think it can be used to produce “any result a researcher wants.” People’s level of knowledge can influence beliefs about these matters, but it does so through the lens of partisanship, a tendency known as motivated reasoning.”

The survey also found “when it comes to questions of scientists’ transparency and accountability, most Americans are skeptical. About two-in-ten or fewer U.S. adults say that scientists are transparent about potential conflicts of interest with industry groups all or most of the time. Similar shares (roughly between one-in-ten and two-in-ten) say that scientists admit their mistakes and take responsibility for them all or most of the time.

This data shows clearly that when it comes to questions of transparency and accountability, most in the general public are attuned to the potential for self-serving interests to skew science findings and recommendations. These findings echo calls for increased transparency and accountability across many sectors and industries today.”

Richard Feynman, the American physicist and leader of the project at Los Alamos, New Mexico that developed the atomic bomb, is reported to have said “If you can't explain something to a first-year student, then you haven't really understood” and “the truth always turns out to be simpler than you thought.” If you listen to my lectures (average class time 90 minutes), I guess you would have to conclude based on Dr. Feynman position that I really don’t understand what I am talking about.

We are facing that same difficult attention deficit problem in the STEM university today. There are two competing forces that need to find a satisfactory compromise. This is a delicate balancing act. One force represents the growing complexity of knowledge in our modern world. Advancing technology trends, the need to complement business acumen, with engineering competency, with environmental awareness and slip in that special class on leadership and innovation. The goals need to be Earth, Energy, and Environment, not just one or two of these topics. But to achieve this goal it is easier to dream up new material, new lectures, new labs, new honors and design courses, than to cut back on the current relevant curriculum. But all this adds up to more credit hours. Where do you find time to take them? I pity the students today. Not everyone can just go for a graduate degree to pick up the extra courses.

Resisting this force to add more knowledge to our graduating students as they prepare to enter the workforce is the reality of a four-year degree program, capped at 128 hours or so and also informally capped by how much parents are willing to pay to get junior out of the basement and onto earning his/her own way. With my university being tuition-driven (rather than living off of generous state support or have an enormous capital endowment to fund scholarships), this force is a real determining factor. Harvard has an endowment fund of $42 billion, over 100 times that of Mines.

Students are often faced with no room to take electives or pursue a minor, or a subject they find interesting but is not part of the program, given the full load required by the core curriculum and department expectations. 12 credit hour minimum for full time status, 15-18 credit-hour common load. I took semesters with over 20 hours, but no one really wants to go back to those days. I worked six and a half days a week and didn’t have a life. Not a way to enjoy your college experience.

The Core curriculum is important and professors in every category have courses they want to add, I know I do. But without Mr. Musk’s neural link interface, we are trying to put ten pounds of knowledge in a five-pound sack of time available and student attention. You have to allocate some time to competitive frisbee or else the brain will overload.?