Alex WellersteinVerified account

Nothing about that quote limits all childhood curiosity to just science. He’s speaking specifically about scientists. Children curious about art who nurture it into adulthood often become artists. Same with musicians, etc.

And the argument that science is relatively new to humanity so therefore not a natural curiosity to children can be applied to any modern discipline or construct. Seems ridiculous to say children can’t have and inherent talent or curiosity for music, math, etc.

The “science is new” argument sounds like this to me: “Saying children naturally want to communicate is ridiculous since written language wasn’t even invented until 3200BC”. Humanity builds on our innate abilities and invents new and better ways to express them.

Seems energy would be better spent calling out those who wish to destroy instead of calling out those who wish to explore and create.

Bad models of what science is do not further science. Science is an institution powered by people who have to undergo a lot of work to think differently than everybody else. If you think science is important you need to grasp that and its implications.

If everyone was, deep down inside, some kind of scientist, it wouldn't require funding or education or anything else. But everyone is not a scientist (as is plainly obvious). It takes immense work to think and act scientifically. And immense resources to sustain actual science.

This seems rather elitist to me. It also reminds me of the myth that learning math is more difficult than learning how to read. Children, as a whole, have much more potential than your argument seems to give them credit for. To me it’s about accessibility rather than platitudes.

It's not elitist to say that it takes hard work to get good at unintuitive, difficult things. That's the definition of education (and expertise). If you constrain education to the elite, then it's elitist.