The most surprising and memorable information I learned was from “The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence.” I was interested in the section that discusses predicting humanity's potential experience with discovering and communicating with aliens in the future if there was a reliable signal of extraterrestrial activity. I found it fascinating to learn about the post-detection protocol that is no longer government-funded and mainly focuses on validating and independently confirming the discovery. The protocol mainly involves informing the world and ensuring phone lines and websites remain operational. It's interesting to note that social scientists, historians, anthropologists, and even experts in astro-psychology are now getting involved in post-detection of extraterrestrials. The anthropologists, in particular, are raising concerns about the team's ability to accurately predict the world's response and the potential for misinterpreting the findings. The idea of running computer simulations to model a post-alien contact world, as mentioned by Professor Goodman is super interesting and I would definitely be interested in seeing some simulations of this , even though some groups that already engage in some role-play simulations exploring what the world would look like, as well as some sci-fi media.
If I had conducted the interview, I would have asked: "In the interview, Jill Tarter mentioned that science is often taught 'terribly,’ so I would ask: Why do you think there is a discrepancy between how science is perceived by the general public (as having solved many problems) and how scientists view it (as a never-ending set of unanswered questions, where progress leads to 20 more questions)? I would also ask: Why do you think science education often is taught more in relation to engineering, and how can this contribute to the public's misunderstanding of the nature of science?
I would ask this question because I want to know some more reasons as to why there is a disconnect between the public perception and the reality of what science is/looks like (especially in terms of aliens). It's important to gain insights into how better to convey science to students and the general public, because I think a false idea of how science works can lead to a lot of misinformation. Also, addressing this issue could lead to a more scientifically literate society that can appreciate the question-driven nature of scientific research.
https://www.labxchange.org/library/items/lb:HarvardX:68789c56:lx_simulation:1
Your proposed question for the interview is thought-provoking indeed. The perception gap between how science is taught and how the general public perceives it highlights an important difficulty in science education. Understanding science as a never-ending search rather than a collection of solved issues is critical for developing a scientifically educated society. Addressing this difference can not only improve public comprehension of scientific endeavours but also promote a greater appreciation for the complexity inherent in the pursuit of knowledge, particularly in circumstances as significant as prospective extraterrestrial contact.
I share your interest in the in the post-detection protocol that is no longer controlled by the government. It is interesting to consider how accurate these computer simulations that are done by social scientists and astro-psychologists are since they are trying to forecast a response that has never had to been made before. I think being able to correctly inform the public about scientific findings is very important to make sure misinformation and misunderstandings do not arise and I hope we continue to get better at that in the future. Especially when the findings contain a great deal of uncertainty, the public perception of the science related to alien contact needs to be explained in a very careful way.