While reading Chapter 2 of Surrounded by Science, two things caught my attention: the image of the stereotypical scientist, “male, white, isolated and removed from the real world” and my general impression on the strands of informal science learning. I realized that stereotypical scientist they described was identical to my initial thought of a scientist. I always thought that this image gave off a sense of unapproachability and seclusion. To some extent, I think this stereotype is responsible for the distant, closed-off impression of science that some people possess. It’s unfortunate, considering that scientists could be anyone, in any sort of place, and intensely connected to the “real world”. What comes to mind are anthropologists and other practitioners of social sciences.

Social sciences require a great deal of involvement with the community. Even traditional sciences require  some kind of physical/personal involvement. For example, environmental biologists need to get close and personal with the natural world they’re studying. In fact, it could be because of this image that some people don’t realize that they’re involved in science. The stereotypical scientist is the person they think of when asked who does science, and they don’t really recognize that they’re scientists themselves.

The six strands themselves really intrigued me. As I was looking over them, I was thinking of popular science programs such as Mythbusters, and I realized that they use these strands. Mythbusters, in particular, definitely sparks interest and excitement, uses the tools and language of science, and they utilize scientific reasoning in order to prove or disprove myths. What really makes me think is that they don’t push it as science – it just seems perfectly natural. From there, I realized that this is how science should be thought of – not as an external, isolated field, but an incredibly natural process that is so intrinsic that it’s actually odd to point it out.