I enjoyed the discussion of the public's perception of science and the concept of unknown unknowns. Jill Tarter's work exemplifies the delicate balance between garnering public interest and maintaining scientific/academic integrity. Public interest is vital for funding projects like hers, yet scientific rigor must not be compromised. Therefore, it's crucial that her work remains popular enough to sustain public interest while also contributing significantly to scientific advancement. I also think that publicly available courses like PredictionX play a crucial role in drawing interest to such topics, serving as a bridge between scientific exploration and public understanding and continuing to promote these topics for future advancement. Jill Tarter's field of astronomy also probably helps her with public perception; I think astronomy is a field that most people have a bit of fascination with (e.g. the eclipse as well as the science fiction she later talks about), making it more publicly appealing and easier to draw an audience to.
https://www.labxchange.org/library/items/lb:HarvardX:68789c56:lx_simulation:1?fullscreen=true
Hi Justin, I thought it was quite interesting that you mentioned the importance of public perception in maintaining relevance, even within the field of science that is not generally considered to have much connection to human thoughts and emotion. You make a great point that sites like PredictionX can even help to maintain relevance and that astronomy is of great interest to society, just as you said because of the sheer amount of fascination and uncertainty space can provide. I also liked how you mentioned that public understanding should go hand in hand with scientific exploration. For example, during the Covid-19 pandemic, there were varying degrees of public trust in the news being reported regarding new breakthroughs, and the differing actions taken as a result of this had several unique consequences in different areas.