US Adults Fail Basic Science Literacy 1038
TaeKwonDood writes "Do you want the bad news first or the good news? The good news is that about 80% of Americans think science knowledge is 'very important' to our future. The bad news is most of those people think it's up to someone else to get knowledgeable. Only 15% actually know how much of the planet is covered in water (47% if you accept a rough approximation of the exact number) and over 40% think dinosaurs and humans cavorted together like in some sort of 'Land Of The Lost' episode. What to do? Pres. Obama thinks merit pay for teachers makes sense. Yes, it will enrage the teachers' union, but it might inspire better people to go into science teaching. It's either that or accept that almost 50% of Americans won't know how long it takes the earth to go around the sun."
Surprise. (Score:5, Insightful)
Wha? (Score:1, Insightful)
You know, I'll own up to not knowing that it was exactly 47% of the earth that was covered with water. I actually thought it was a lot closer to 70%, and, apparently, so does Google [google.com], so its a common misconception. I wonder if one of us isn't counting ice?
You know what though, even if the number is 47%, I don't think that knowing that number means anything. That's a piece of trivia; maybe an oceanographer would use that number in his or her daily life, but that's about it.
Lot of education in this country is about trivia and trivialities. Why force someone to memorize a worthless factoid? And why judge their scientific literacy by the number of factoids they know?
I say we take the trivia out of science education, and put the scientific method in. People need critical thinking skills, and problem solving methodologies a hell of a lot more than they need pi to 20 digits, or to be able name our current geologic epoch (Holocene), or any of a number of worthless pieces of trivia.
Scientific Method What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Plain old basic literacy (Score:2, Insightful)
I understand pointing out that ridiculous number of people who fail basic science literacy. But we also shouldn't ignore the high number of people who do poorly in basic English literacy, of which TaeKwonDood is one. That sentence above falls apart in a number of ways.
Re:47% (Score:5, Insightful)
That's funny. Wonder what the percentage of scientifically literate people who can identify a misplaced modifier is?
Re:Surprise. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, its all them thar religions.
Re:Wha? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Scientific Method What? (Score:3, Insightful)
And because science is viewed as a ritualized activity, liars and con-artists like the Discovery Institute can take advantage of that ignorance to attack the foundations of science to insert (however cleverly disguised) Creationism as some sort of rational alternative. It does not help science education that lunatics and con-men are constantly trying to knock science down so that they're bizarre literal readings of Genesis can be raised up.
If the US doesn't eventually want to become a second-rate power then it better start seriously consider that pandering to the low-watt lightbulbs is not a route to long-term viability in the sciences or technology.
culture (Score:5, Insightful)
You can pay teachers all you want, but it wont inspire students to learn and retain knowledge. Only parents/peers/culture can do that.
Merit Pay (Score:5, Insightful)
My one problem with the idea of merit pay for teachers is that there isn't really a good way to measure teacher merit. In most jobs, a worker has a very high degree of control over the end product: for example, nothing goes into the source code I write unless I say so. In such
The problem is that teachers don't (and shouldn't) have that kind of control over the end product: namely, their own students. At best they can guide and influence, but even in the best of situations, more often than not students will be affected by things completely beyond the teacher's ability to predict or control. It is thus grossly unfair to use student performance as a measure of teacher performance, simply because the ties between them are much too loose.
The other option that has been put forward is to use evaluations, by peers, students, administrators, or other factors. Subjectivity is the problem here: it's far too easy to game such evaluations, or to subject them to office politics. This can have both positive and negative effects on various parties, depending on viewpoint, but in any case it cannot be made fair or reliable as a measure of performance.
What other methods exist? I can see none, and would be interested in hearing possible alternatives. But in their absence, "merit pay" for teachers is nothing more than a comforting myth: the concept is unworkable, and implementations cannot be made to reliably follow the concept. Yes, this is different from many (most?) jobs, but the nature of the job itself -also very different from most- is what creates these conditions.
Re:Factual errors in submission (Score:2, Insightful)
Agreed. OF course humans cavorted with dinosaurs! The Earth was created only 6,000 years ago, shortly after the light and the dark, so there's no other logical explanation!
Re:Surprise. (Score:3, Insightful)
Boards of Education are trying to teach how a magic man in the sky created everything. Reap what you sow.
I don't think that is the case. Personally, I was raised and educated in Arkansas, smack in the middle of the bible belt, in a southern baptist home, and I like to think I have a firm grasp on basic scientific facts. For example, the Earth's surface is actually closer to 3/4 water, not 47%.
What I think is happening is that people are blaming religion, specifically Christianity, for all the problems of the world. And when it comes to education the real problem is that people are just fucking lazy.
One of my most favorite and most aggravating bits of television is "Jay Walking" where Jay Leno cruises the street and asks pedestrians very simple questions and then airs all their ridiculous answers on national television.
And it's a statistics game... (Score:5, Insightful)
And what is said in the summary:
"Only 15% actually know how much of the planet is covered in water"
So there's a bit of idiocy with the person who wrote this. In reality, as you put it, 15% got the correct answer--15% did not necessarily "actually know how much of the planet is covered in water." That would imply that no one guessed. A little hypocrisy in the summary, perhaps? In the article, they put it correctly: "Only 15% of respondents answered this question with the exactly correct answer of 70%."
EDITORS, DO YOUR JOBS. If there is a fallacy in the summary, either correct it, or DO NOT POST THE STORY.
Re:47% (Score:3, Insightful)
This mistake proves the premise of the article.
Actually, it is a counter example. The article talks about how science education is lacking and how this is a problem. The summary was a case of poor language skills failing to accurately and clearly convey information the submitter almost certainly understood. The article talks about the problem with science education, but does at address that education is failing in many, many other areas as well.
Rough Approximations (Score:4, Insightful)
"How much of the earth's surface is covered by water?" Does one need to know the answer to within one percent, or less? Is that even known so precisely? If the correct answer is 70-75% water (approx 3/4) then are 4/5 and 2/3 water good enough guesses? I think both numbers contain the main idea that there's more water than land.
And as for humans and dinos walking the earth together, I think a majority of those who "didn't know dinos and humans didn't live at the same time" would probably have answered that dinos preceeded humans if asked on a gameshow where prizemoney was at stake. Answering that they thought dinos and humans walked the earth together makes is a statement about the beliefs they choose to espouse.
Re:No surprise, really. (Score:2, Insightful)
No Child Left Behind was signed into law in 2002. TFA's figures are from questions given to adults. There can be no more than 7 years worth of adults who could have gained any benefit whatsoever from that Act. Not exactly damning evidence.
Re:! science (Score:3, Insightful)
Geography is a science.
Re:Wha? (Score:3, Insightful)
The Greeks were fanatics for categorizing things. I suppose other people had done a lot of that before them, but the Greeks were the first people who developed systematic approaches, and in the process pretty much invented Western Philosophy. They didn't always get it right, but you are correct, without some basic fundamentals, nothing else makes sense. So, while in and of itself, knowing how much of the surface of the planet is covered in water might seem sort of a question worthy of Jeopardy, when it is related to climatology, geology, biology, planetary formation and a whole host of other fields of research, it becomes a rather important fact.
I suppose we could take the view that Sherlock Holmes did when he poo-pooed Watson for telling him that the Earth orbited the Sun, and yes, for Joe Average, information like that isn't likely to be useful on a day-to-day basis, still, there was, not so long ago, the notion that a nation in the Modern Age was going to need to have an intelligent, educated body of citizens, because, after all, democracy is government of the people, for the people and by the people. If the people are a pack of ignorant dullards who don't even know the basic geography questions, what the hell kind of government do you suppose we'll have?
Aside from that... that isn't scientific literacy. (Score:5, Insightful)
Just a note: Knowing how much of the planet is covered in water is *not* scientific literacy. That is trivia knowledge. If I need to know how much of the planet is covered in water (I'd guess 80%), I look it up, and decide if the definition matches my needs.
Scientific literacy would be understanding (1) how to research science you need (2) how to conduct a proper experiment (3) how to evaluate claims for obvious falsehood (4) how to check out non-obvious claims for falsehood, which is related to #1, (5) how to identify whether you are yourself competent in an area of science, or not, and (6) how to find someone who *is* competent, if necessary.
I hate it when people mistake factoids for science.
I hate it when people mistake popular blurbs for reason.
Re:Surprise. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well Scopes [umkc.edu] was more than 80 years ago, so you can't put a 30 year cut off on the religion argument.
Considering that this country was founded by religious refugees, and considering that historically, we've always been slower to adopt scientific theories than most other first world countries, it's certainly a plausible argument.
Frankly I think our scientific glory days are more about the waves of educated immigrants we got in the last century due to the unrest in europe (WWI, WWII, the Cold War) than in any native virtue that we had and somehow lost.
Until we start pushing actual critical thought as part of our curriculum instead of trivia and shortcuts, we're never going to have a world class educational program.
Not just primary education (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm a biology professor, and I can tell you that my kids in grade school know a lot of things my college students do not (including my bio students, who you would think might have a lifelong interest in the sciences). It's not that they aren't being taught, it's that they forget most of what they learn (this is the basis for the "Are you smarter than a 5th grader" show). I'm all for better science education, but I don't think better primary education is going to make this better. You can teach kids whatever you want, but if they don't find relevance for it in their lives they'll forget it. Even the cable stations that are supposed to be devoted to feeding an interest in science and nature (Discovery, Animal Planet) are full of shows about blowing stuff up and rescuing abused pets. There are very few ways in which science is treated as interesting and worthwhile in our culture outside of the classroom.
Re:culture (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't think a teacher can inspire students, you've never had a good teacher, let alone a great one.
Re:Surprise. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, at least pimps, hos and playas are merely indifferent to science. They don't actively work to discredit it, suppress it or redefine it as something else.
Re:Plain old basic literacy (Score:2, Insightful)
Is it just me, or does it seem the job of 'editor' on an English language news site should come with the requirement that those filling it should not fail at basic English literacy?
This is not a flame, this is a serious question.
Re:Factual errors in submission (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh come on, not this again. How many times do we want to keep having the same discussion? Yes, some people interpret the Bible literally and turn a blind eye to science. We have this conversation every time there's some story of an archeological, geological, etc. bent. Perhaps we should focus the conversation here on people who value science but nonetheless remain scientifically illiterate (which in itself is a very sizable chunk of the population).
Re:47% (Score:3, Insightful)
What's the basic statistical literacy [wikipedia.org] among authors?
Re:Wha? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ignorance is diverse as well as widespread (Score:5, Insightful)
Q1: How many of them believe in astrology, Feng Shui, crystal power, and other crap?
Q2: How many of them know that the Earth is not flat, and is about 4.5 billion years old?
I would not be surprised if the answer to Q1 is larger than the answer to Q2. Unfortunately. And that's just a sample of delusions compared to a couple of simple and well-known facts.
There is a crying need for teaching the scientific method in schools. Ideally, it would be accompanied by numerous exercises in critical thought, including the examination of "common knowledge" and topical news stories.
Re:easy merit pay (Score:5, Insightful)
and 80% of the population will get no education worth anything...then the illegal Mexican immigrants will get the jobs that require education and US citizens get the day laborer jobs.
The demonstrated reality is that societally mandated education is the single most stabilizing activity. In addition it provides the best ROI of ANYTHING we can do.
If you want to see the US turn into a 3rd world country in one generation, get rid of public education.
Re:Wha? (Score:5, Insightful)
You will never join facts unless you have a fact-joining intellectual toolkit. The Greeks did some categorization, but they also invented deductive logic, and mathematical proofs.
Our educational system today is all about rote memorization, and it is no surprise that we have kids getting to college who don't understand how to write a paper that presents an argument, more less understanding the finer points of the scientific method.
Secondary education isn't the place to force-feed people facts that they're never going to need or use; you need to teach research, critical thought, logic, and the scientific method...Those things are useful for everyone, and once that framework exists, you can hang whatever facts you please on it.
Re:Aside from that... that isn't scientific litera (Score:1, Insightful)
I would, as number (0) understanding what is and what isn't science.
Obvious example: "intelligent design"
Re:Surprise. (Score:5, Insightful)
Slow to accept theories? The USA has been one of the absolute leaders in scientific research, Actually, I think we probably are still one of the best in that regard.
The problem is that we have a very disjointed view of science in this country. We have some of the best universities, labs, and research centers in the world. These places are filled with brilliant people from the USA and around the world. People come from everywhere to get such a quality higher education.
Sounds good, but there is a huge percentage of the population that views science and education as being something to be afraid of. Why would want to listen to those liberal elitists working on their spooky experiments?
We have a big problem with the glorification of ignorance and simplemindedness. People want a president "they could have a beer with" instead of some "overe-ducated liberal elitist". The heros of children are rapper and athletes. Being a good student is punishable by your peers.
Re:Scientific Method What? (Score:3, Insightful)
If the US doesn't eventually want to become a second-rate power then it better start seriously consider that pandering to the low-watt lightbulbs is not a route to long-term viability in the sciences or technology.
But that would mean telling people that their favorite holy book is quite literally inaccurate in its depiction of the creation stories in Genesis.
As soon as you tell people that, there's a certain politically powerful group that will be raving mad.
I don't know why some people can't simply accept that stories in the Bible are just that -- stories.
Re:Surprise. (Score:5, Insightful)
Boards of Education are trying to teach how a magic man in the sky created everything. Reap what you sow.
I know it's popular around here to bash the religious right and blame them for the decline in science education but I suspect that the problem is with our system itself and not the influence of religious elements. The influence of religion is troubling but the religious-right has lost more often than they've won (Kitzmiller [wikipedia.org] comes to mind) and I don't think it's fair to place a majority of the blame on them.
Consider the fact that most Americans can't find Afghanistan on the map. Consider the fact that we rank 24th in math. How do you blame either of those on religious influences? Math and geography don't stir up a lot of religious dissent the last time I checked. Bottom line: The whole system sucks and you can't blame it all on the creationists.
As for fixing it, I'm not real hopeful. The Democrats solution will invariably be to throw more money at the problem. Given that we are already spending ~$8,300 [census.gov] per student I'm not real hopeful that more money and bureaucracy will solve anything. The Republican solution [wikipedia.org] of unfunded mandates and punishments for failing to meet those mandates doesn't seem very wise either.
My Libertarian leanings would prefer to see less Governmental influence in education. I do find it interesting that many private schools have an annual tuition that's less than the average amount we are paying per student for public schools and manage to turn out higher test scores and better educated/adjusted students. This suggests to me that there could be a marketplace solution to the problem but I have zero optimism that the entrenched interests will ever allow it to happen on a scale large enough to be meaningful.
In short, we are screwed. The only bright side is we still have the best higher educational system in the world. Perhaps the solution is to add a year onto all college programs to correct all of the mistakes that were made during primary education? ;)
Re:And it's a statistics game... (Score:1, Insightful)
As a sign of the times, I recently took the test required to work on the 2010 Census. In the reading comprehension section there were a couple of questions asking for the correct interpretation of several badly written paragraphs of instructions.
This is the new level to which we have sunk? It doesn't matter how badly you express yourself - even in official functions - if people can more or less guess what it is you are trying to impart? It is now the burden of the receiver to figure out what the hell you are talking about?
Re:Surprise. (Score:4, Insightful)
It has nothing to do with a culture that works very hard to create the image of the 'nerd' as something to be shunned as opposed to the 'businessman' the 'beauty queen' and the 'wealthy person' that everyone should try to be.
I corrected your spelling.
That's pretty much conservatism in a nutshell. It's all about the monopolization of resources, the encouragement of inanity to limit threats to the status quo, and good dose of misdirection to keep the victims angry at someone else. (In this case, inner city blacks, though liberals, intellectuals, Jews, women, gays, and many other groups serve that purpose just as well. This particular example is used because it is the only segment of American society that is less educated than the conservative base.)
Re:Factual errors in submission (Score:2, Insightful)
Because at the end of the day, those who interpret the Bible literally and turn a blind eye to science are very much contributing to, and may even, in fact, be at least part of the cause of the problem.
Biblical literalist wackos should never be allowed to serve in public office. Ever.
Maybe not basic. (Score:3, Insightful)
If you take a scientific basis that times should be measured in basic defined units (SI second) then saying "it takes a year" is roughly equivalent of saying "it takes as long as it takes".
You very often find that what might seem to be a trivial question to someone with basic high-school science is actually difficult to give a clear-cut answer to.
Re:Merit Pay (Score:3, Insightful)
The real solution is, "Pay teachers more money."
I personally was very interested in teaching about software and computers until I reached college. Then, when I started researching it, I realized how little teachers made and I could make twice as much as some "long term" teachers as my starting salary in industry.
Additionally, teacher's unions don't help. It's impossible (pretty much) to fire a bad teacher. I can think of a few teachers who needed to go while I was in school. (And I was a good student, too. I liked most of my teachers.) I can think of one in particular who flat out said, "I really dislike all of you. It's too bad I can't quit." With an attitude like that, no wonder our students aren't learning. (On the flip side, my favorite teacher inspired me to start writing, and I've loved it ever since.)
significant figures (Score:3, Insightful)
FTA
The approximately correct answer range for this question was defined as anything between 65% and 75%. Only 15% of respondents answered this question with the exactly correct answer of 70%.
I'm sorry, no. Seventy percent is not "exactly correct". At best it is an estimate, and one that is subject to natural fluctuations due to things like temperatures, tidal patterns, etc.
How much should a layperson actually know about the planet's water coverage? "More than half water" is probably a little lacking; "between two-thirds and three-quarters" is probably about right.
"Between 70% and 71%" is worthless nitpicking, a rote recitation of a rule of thumb learned in grade school, the same place they learned that the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second, there are 2,000 pounds in a ton, and 1 yard = 1 meter.
Re:Aside from that... that isn't scientific litera (Score:5, Insightful)
Just a note: Knowing how much of the planet is covered in water is *not* scientific literacy. That is trivia knowledge.
I hate it when people mistake factoids for science.
I hate it when people mistake popular blurbs for reason.
Maybe. But not knowing that the earth takes one year to revolve around the sun indicates a pretty serious failure to know what the fuck is going on.
And, seriously...if you can't imagine a globe in your head and at least get between 60% and 80% water...you are pretty ignorant. If a lot of people are that ignorant, we have a problem.
As always, I would like to see results of the exact same survey from other countries for comparison.
Re:And it's a statistics game... (Score:5, Insightful)
do you think we really have time to go through every submission?
No, of course not. But once you pick a post to send to the front page it should then go through an edit process. Can't the select few that are deemed worthy of the front page get a decent edit? It's only 10 to 20 per day.
The only reason we come here daily (besides the commentary) is the edited posts. If I wanted unedited submissions I'd go to digg or reddit. It's the human touch that makes /. special, so let's focus on it and make it as good as possible.
Re:Merit Pay (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, that's the problem, isn't it. You can't correlate things that way. You can't say "Little Johnny is only getting Cs in English" and then declare his teacher sucks, any more than you could make the declaration that his teacher's fantastic if he's getting Bs. You don't look at a single student, you look at a body of students over time. If an English teacher consistently produces an above-average number of well-performing students, and this trend continues over a couple of years, then you can start making at least some sort of preliminary statistical statements.
When I was in grade 8, I had possibly the worst teacher of my entire life in Math. He was a disaster area. He'd do things like write on the chalkboard "Polynomial" followed by some rather oblique definition which, because he hadn't really taught the fundamentals to use, made no sense whatsoever. Over half of that class outright failed, and only a small handful of kids got C+s or better. I don't think anyone got an A. Apparently he had been doing this for years. Now, I don't think you have to be a statistician to come to the conclusion that this guy was continually turning out failing grades at a far higher rate than what one ought to expect, and that even those that passed were sitting at the mid-Cs with far more frequency.
The fact was that school administrators were basically hamstrung by the union. The union has fought performance evaluations for decades, has protected some genuinely awful teachers, simply because, despite all the high talk, teachers unions don't give a shit about students. Quite frankly the first act of political will needed is to bloody well hamstring the unions, force at least some sort of medium-term evaluation system that can accept that teachers won't always be at the top of their game, but that anyone who is consistently dropping the ball needs to be let go. Sometimes I think giving the crappy teachers a fat severance package if they go away quietly would be much better than letting them trash the learning of kids for years.
Re:Ignorance is diverse as well as widespread (Score:5, Insightful)
As a science type, I encourage you to not turn off your brain to astrology, Feng Shui, crystal power, and other crap.
Instead, test it formally, with double blinds, hoping that it works (so you don't subconsciously suppress data). Then if you find something, have others duplicate your work. That's the scientific method.
Blindly assuming something is false is not.
IMHO, having a science degree and then getting a massage license, I found that some things are very real and they are surrounded with mysticism so that is the way to learn them- but there is still something real in there-- that could be dug out. And it's surrounded by a ton of crap that isn't real.
Re:Plain old basic literacy (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it just me, or does it seem the job of 'editor' on an English language news site should come with the requirement that those filling it should not fail at basic English literacy?
Yes. However, the more important problem is that the number of people who can write English properly is diminishing; this leaves fewer people qualified for the job of editor, so editing standards also diminish over time.
Re:Aside from that... that isn't scientific litera (Score:3, Insightful)
Just a note: Knowing how much of the planet is covered in water is *not* scientific literacy. That is trivia knowledge.
Incorrect. "Trivia", by definition, is useless information, such as who won American Idol last season. Knowing that 70% of the earth is covered with water is essential information for realizing that overpopulation is an issue, for knowing how crucial water currents are with relation to global warming and weather phenomena, and for geographical and political-boundary wisdom. It's nearly as essential as knowing the shape of the planet or where the meridians and parallels are--the lack of this info is, in certain ways, crippling.
Re:Wha? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't disagree, but you need the facts too. So, which do you teach first. And, which is more important (and why) Again, these things are easily over-trivialized.
Re:47% (Score:5, Insightful)
Could that be because here there's more need for it?
Re:Merit Pay (Score:3, Insightful)
Plenty of higher educational institutions (going back at least 30+ years (from my limited knowledge), especially with technical colleges) have great ways of determining success via core competency tracking of individual students. If the majority of students are not scoring well in their own individual required competencies, then it's a pretty good indicator (along with other tracked metrics and comparisons to other educators teaching the same competencies to other students) that the specific teacher is not performing well.
Personally I don't know what the solution is but to say that it's difficult to track this due to an individual student's learning capacity, ability, and desire is just nonsense to me.
Part of the problem is how do you ensure a reasonable level of ability across a population? In higher ed, in theory, you at least have entrance exam scores and HS grades to establish a rough baseline. While you have standardized test scores at the K-12 level to help id abilities you could then adjust competency levels to abilities but I don't see much of a move towards that type of analysis.
Unless you account for differing abilities you'll penalize teachers with the special ed kids in their class since some fraction of them will score below the required level; alternatively you may see a rise in SPEDs as schools and teachers realize that by mandating a child receive special adaptations during a test (as required by law) they can raise scores.
I think teachers would like some sort of merit pay - many that I know are frustrated with peers who simply cannot teach or are poor teachers; but they want a system that actually rewards performance and is not just another political "fix" that is ultimately ineffective.
Re:Wha? (Score:1, Insightful)
Remember grasshopper, always preview before you spew...
Re:Surprise. (Score:2, Insightful)
Survey of people with a Land line... (Score:2, Insightful)
How many technology workers have a land line in this day and age?
This suffers from the same problems as political telephone surveys:
1) Is the person home
2) Will the person answer the phone
3) Is the person willing to take the survey
Most of us have better things to do, those who don't are often just couch-potatoes or other unmotivated people.
To the best of my knowledge they don't call cell phones, so most of the tech-savvy people are not even candidates. They don't call business lines, so people who are working late are not candidates either(assuming they don't call during the day which would further eliminate those with day-jobs)
Think of all the people you know with a land line. Are those generally the smartest people you know? The most tech-savvy?
Sounds to me that it is almost more of a survey of jobless luddites than the average hard working American citizen...
Re:Learn things that matter (Score:3, Insightful)
If the facts are not relevant to a person's daily life or that person's career, who cares if they know the quantitative answer to a question? Let that person concentrate on information that can actually improve their lot in life, and stop quizzing them on trivia.
Except they ARE relevant to a person's daily life. Global warming affects each and every one of us daily and will continue to do so to a greater and greater degree. Knowing fundamental facts about our planet helps people understand the concept and therefore helps them vote properly for candidates best qualified to work towards solving the problem. It is unquestionable that a voter who does not know 70% of the planet is water is less qualified to help fix the planet than one who does know that. "Trivia" this is not, so please do not compare it to knowing who won the Oscar for best director in 1953.
Re:Surprise. (Score:5, Insightful)
Slow to accept theories? The USA has been one of the absolute leaders in scientific research, Actually, I think we probably are still one of the best in that regard.
The two aren't mutually exclusive. You can have the intellectual elites riding (and directing) the bleeding edge of research, while the country as a whole is slow on the uptake of the science the elites (both domestic and foreign) produce. In the meanwhile, countries that produce less scientific knowledge might be much more avid consumers of that knowledge. Quite tellingly, do american scientists have a good knowledge of science as a whole, or do they limit themselves to trying to be leaders in their own domain? (honest question, and food for thought)
No single "scientific method" (Score:3, Insightful)
For example, it may be that doing double-blind studies are often a great idea, but we regularly accept studies without it as being scientifically valid. I'm actually partial to the "guess and check" method for solving lots of problems. Different problems work better with different methods.
Re:47% (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wha? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Surprise. (Score:3, Insightful)
I completely agree with you, and the GP. On the point of partially home-schooling kids: I think knowledgeable, well-educated parents should do this anyway. As in, try to give as much education and encouragement to learn and study the nature around you, as you possibly can, as a parent. It worked for Einstein and Feinman, to name a few. They wentto school, but both had parents that gave their kids the stimulus and the conditions in which their intelligence could grow.
Re:Aside from that... that isn't scientific litera (Score:5, Insightful)
So if say 50% of the earth were covered with water it would mean overpopulation isn't an issue, global warming wouldn't be affected by water currents, etc?
I don't think knowing the percentage is all that important to non-scientists' understanding of critical scientific issues.
Re:Aside from that... that isn't scientific litera (Score:3, Insightful)
Mod parent up!
This article does indeed highlight a disturbing lack of scientific literacy, but only by demonstrating how poorly even the authors understand science. Science is a method, not a collection of facts, and while the first question (about the time it takes the earth to revolve around the sun) might qualify as a real question of understanding, the other two are just factoids.
The core of scientific literacy is having the set of skills listed above, and a mindset that insists on applying these skills to every situation you encounter. Anything short of that is, at best, bad science, and more often than not, mere metaphysics.
Re:Aside from that... that isn't scientific litera (Score:2, Insightful)
My biggest problem with the summary is that many scientists might fail this "basic science literacy" test simply because it's too specific. As pointed out elsewhere, how much of the planet is covered in water is more of a trivia question. And asking if humans and dinosaurs coexisted is an opinion question, not a question about science. It's entirely possible for someone to believe, for religious reasons, that humans and dinosaurs lived together but to also understand the science.
Science literacy shouldn't be about what they know, it should be about what they can recognize. Just because I'm literate with books doesn't mean that I can tell you specific details about Edgar Allen Poe, nor does it mean that I necessarily agree with Orwell.
Re:Wha? (Score:4, Insightful)
Knowing how precisely you need to understand something in a given context is
a valuable thing in and of itself. Knowing how to "estimate" things will allow
you to seem to know more while actually putting less effort into it.
Re:Surprise. (Score:4, Insightful)
I do find it interesting that many private schools have an annual tuition that's less than the average amount we are paying per student for public schools and manage to turn out higher test scores and better educated/adjusted students.
Private schools can pick and choose who they accept. Of course their students will have higher test scores.
Re:Surprise. (Score:2, Insightful)
The issue is not that people can't learn, it's that they're not being taught how to think.
That's the big issue.
The problem is the fundamental way that kids are "taught". Memorization is not learning.
Re:47% (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Aside from that... that isn't scientific litera (Score:2, Insightful)
And asking if humans and dinosaurs coexisted is an opinion question, not a question about science. It's entirely possible for someone to believe, for religious reasons, that humans and dinosaurs lived together but to also understand the science.
This is incorrect. We have no evidence that they lived together. Individuals may choose to ignore the _scientific_ facts, but that isn't science. So, #fail! By your reasoning, if someone was asked: "Is the world round or flat?" and they answered "flat" based on whatever whacko system of beliefs they might have, it suddenly becomes a question of "opinion"? Certainly not. Why an individual chooses to ignore certain areas of scientific understanding are irrelevant, unless it's done on a scientific basis.
Re:47% (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wha? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:culture (Score:3, Insightful)
Your counterpoint about good teachers vs parental involvement is always cited whenever the topic of education is raised, but it's a red herring. Having your parents there to motivate you for your entire life is a far better predictor of lifetime academic achievement than waiting around for a great teacher. Teachers are not, nor should they ever be considered an adequate replacement for parental involvement. Only parents have the motivation and tenure over a person's entire life to make a difference in the face of bad teachers in a poor school system.
In fact, if you can explain how we can reliably train teachers to inspire for the student's entire life, the entire world would like to hear it. I don't think you can train someone to inspire.
Re:Aside from that... that isn't scientific litera (Score:5, Insightful)
And asking if humans and dinosaurs coexisted is an opinion question, not a question about science. It's entirely possible for someone to believe, for religious reasons, that humans and dinosaurs lived together but to also understand the science.
*does double take* Opinion question? Whether humans (who have been around for less than a million years no matter how loosely you define human) and dinosaurs (which have been dead for over 60 million years unless you call crocodiles and/or birds dinosaurs) lived together is opinion? What definition of opinion are you using?
Claiming religious belief is absurd. If I say the sky is red, and grass is purple, because I was honestly raised to believe these things, does that mean that a debate over whether clear daytime sky on Earth is blue or red is merely a difference of opinion? I'm fine with you thinking the sky is red, but if you claim that you are mindful of science in the same breath, I'll laugh myself to death.
And no, this is no strawman. The rough periods in which dinosaurs and humans lived are so far apart and clearly established, that the only way to have them live together would be if we had a deity who interceded in direct physical ways constantly. And if you accept that, then the scientific method is just as worthless as if you regularly deny the visual evidence of 6 billion people the world over when it comes to the color of the grass and the sky.
Re:Aside from that... that isn't scientific litera (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not that they did not know it, or could not work it out, it is that they snapped back an answer of "24 hours" because they thought that the question was something that it wasn't.
Re:Aside from that... that isn't scientific litera (Score:5, Insightful)
My biggest problem with the summary is that many scientists might fail this "basic science literacy" test simply because it's too specific.
I don't think that's the problem. It's just that it only asks about facts/likely truths determined by science, not about science itself.
As pointed out elsewhere, how much of the planet is covered in water is more of a trivia question.
Agreed.
And asking if humans and dinosaurs coexisted is an opinion question, not a question about science.
Well, it is asking a question where the scientific method has determined one answer to be the most likely truth. Science never really proves anything, just has theories that are more or less supported. A person who understands and trusts the scientific method is a person who accepts the most supported theory until the preponderance of evidence shifts.
It's entirely possible for someone to believe, for religious reasons, that humans and dinosaurs lived together but to also understand the science.
It's also entirely possible for someone to understand the science but believe for religious reasons that the earth does not go around the sun. It's just not rational or scientific because it is rejecting the answers presented by the scientific method and arbitrarily believing something else.
Science literacy shouldn't be about what they know, it should be about what they can recognize.
I agree it should not be about trivia, but it should include understanding and applying the scientific method. If people apply the scientific method very narrowly and then apply irrational and nonscientific methods to determine the facts about other parts of the world, then I'd argue scientific literacy has failed to a significant extent.
Just because I'm literate with books doesn't mean that I can tell you specific details about Edgar Allen Poe, nor does it mean that I necessarily agree with Orwell.
No, but to be literate means you can read and often that you do read, not that you can read certain things but in other instances you can just look at the pictures or you make up what you think the little squiggly things on the paper mean. You don't have to agree with Orwell to be literate, you just have to be able to read his books. Not understanding that the scientific method has determined the most likely truth to be that humans and dinosaurs never inhabited the earth at the same time is analogous to being unable to read Orwell.
Re:Aside from that... that isn't scientific litera (Score:3, Insightful)
To fail at basic info like that, shows a disregard for scientific knowledge.
No. Failing to name the exact or +/- 10% fraction of Earth that is covered in water most emphatically does NOT demonstrate a disregard for scientific knowledge.
There is yet another problem with science teachers (Score:4, Insightful)
My wife is a science teacher. She left a job recovering organs and tissues etc. for transplant to become a science teacher because it afforded her more time with the kids.
In her years of teaching she has noticed a few prevalent problems that cause problems with science education, her and I have discussed these at great length.
1. There is a shortage of science teachers. It is always hardest for the the schools to recruit science and math teachers.
2. Due to the fact that the science and math teachers are generally smarter, more logical, and better organized than their 'Bachelor of Arts' counter-parts they are usually the first to be promoted into quasi-management positions (Asst. Principal, Principal etc.)
3. Most of these promotees quickly become disenfranchised with the bureaucracy and idiocy that runs rampant through American schools. They end up getting very frustrated, and instead of resigning from the quasi-management job and going back to being a teacher, their frustration with the 'whole system' causes them to quit outright and seek their fortunes elsewhere.
The future of science education in America is bleak my friends (and foes.)
Re:Surprise. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:47% (Score:5, Insightful)
Could that be because here there's more need for it?
There's a tendency for computer programmers to be picky about grammar. Especially after having the experience of a major system crashing on them for the lack of a semicolon.
Re:Aside from that... that isn't scientific litera (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people do not seem to understand that you can make a statement of fact that is wrong. They believe that a statement of fact by definition is only the right answers.
Even fewer realize that if I say 'My favorite color is magenta.', that I have just made a statement of fact. It is a statement of fact about my opinion. In this case it is a false statement of fact, as magenta is in fact, not my favorite color.
Re:Surprise. (Score:3, Insightful)
What I think is happening is that people are blaming religion, specifically Christianity, for all the problems of the world. And when it comes to education the real problem is that people are just fucking lazy.
For all that many in the Church are going out of their way to feel persecuted by the media, non-believers, or what have you, this simply isn't the case. No one is blaming Christianity for the world's ills. The people that are being blamed are those promoting ignorance as a virtue and discrediting scientific research by promoting voodoo and pseudoscience.
In the US it just happens that the group that fits this bill is the very vocal minority of Christians that want creationism taught in schools, want to stymie medical research (for a variety of reasons) and are opposed to things like birth control. No one is persecuting the religion as a whole.
Re:Aside from that... that isn't scientific litera (Score:2, Insightful)
She is also very smart - has a masters in math, probably could easily answer trivia like how much of the Earth is covered in water. But she is firm in her beliefs and faith is always > reason.
This is not an attempt to insult your friend, but being good at math or some other subject does not necessarily mean you are a smart person. Being smart means you are capable of thinking critically and rationally about any subject, even ones you may not fully understand. But you will weigh the evidence objectively to form your opinion. I would personally not consider someone who believes in creationist garbage science, or someone who firmly believes that faith trumps reason a smart person.
flip side: too many scientists for available jobs (Score:4, Insightful)
Or you canned by the time you are 40.
Re:Aside from that... that isn't scientific litera (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Aside from that... that isn't scientific litera (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:47% (Score:3, Insightful)
Now see... once they become proficient, I find that the ESL students have *better* written and spoken English than native-speakers.
Seeing as I'm a tutor, I don't get the most proficient students. I've got anecdotal evidence to support you: my mom says that she always proofread my dad's writing 'cause she (as a new immigrant) had grammar drilled into her at her ESL classes and he (having come her as a kid) didn't.
I don't know why it is, but native English speakers don't have the rules of grammar and spelling drilled into their heads nearly as thoroughly as every other language I've studied.
Whole language [wikipedia.org]
I'm sure you didn't mean that. (Score:2, Insightful)
She is also very smart - has a masters in math, probably could easily answer trivia like how much of the Earth is covered in water. But she is firm in her beliefs and faith is always > reason.
This is an extremely common misconception based on the lies of philosophers and armchair scientists. It's not that faith > reason for these people. That's ridiculous and whoever is trying to tell you that is trying to manipulate you. It's that faith > current views.
You have to understand that these people recognize that something unseen moves their life the same way that unseen wind can move trees. It's not an observable phenomena, as far as they're concerned, but to them it's more real than any of our current measurements can accurately observe. Let's face it. If you were to fall into a time machine and get stuck back in the 1400's and try to explain bacterias to people as manipulative, stiff-necked, and unreasonable as today's philosophers and armchair scientists, they would laugh you out! 'Unseen animals that are everywhere, making us sick, processing our foods in our bellies, aging our cheese, and everything else... yes, sure, magical animals -- too small to see, of course, except in the future where we have instruments that let us see them. Keep talking Futureman!'
To say that people and dinosaurs certainly did not coexist is based on a lack of fossil evidence. How is it, then, reasonable to tell people they are idiots for not jumping to conclusions that humans and dinosaurs never coexisted? Elementary students could even call this shit out after their first science fair.
To say that dinosaurs didn't exist is an inference based on a lack of evidence. However, the claim that dinosaurs could have coexisted with humans has evidence (google: Mokele-Mbembe, Cadborosaurus, Kongamoto). None of this can be considered proof or very strong evidence, but it sure as hell trumps a lack of evidence.
There's a reason why the scientific method doesn't come to a screeching halt at "hypothesis"; because that's the beginning of the method, and not the end. Telling people they don't accept reason because they question a hypothesis is idiocy, manipulation, unreasonable, and (sadly) the popular thing to do nowadays. Don't let this be you. </rant>
Re:Aside from that... that isn't scientific litera (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Scientific Method What? (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, in one sense, Creationism isn't that old at all. Sola Scriptura was simply not the norm for the vast bulk of Christianity's history, and it certainly wasn't true of Hellenic Judaism either (which Christianity ultimately began as a Messianic sect of). Creationism, as we see it today, dates back to the Revivalist movements of the 19th century. To be sure, many people believed in a Flood, or in seven literal creative days, simply because there was no reason not to. But even in the 1st century, despite the cosmography of Genesis clearly being that of a flat, dish-shaped Earth with a dome over it in which the heavenly bodies were placed (pretty much ripped off from the Sumero-Akkadian cosmography), I doubt you'd find an educated Jew or Christian who would have actually believed that to be the case, since everyone in the Mediterranean world had known for centuries that the Earth was round. So, the Genesis cosmography was simply reinterpreted in a non-literal fashion.
Beyond that, Judaism had long had extra-Biblical components; the Oral Law, the Talmud and so forth, so there's nothing unusual about the Early and Medieval Church giving great weight to the writings of the Church Fathers and the Church Doctors as a means of interpreting and understanding the Bible to create a comprehensive, cohesive and internally consistent theology. To be sure, the Reformation certainly began a movement in some Protestant traditions towards Sola Scriptura, but it really wasn't until the 19th century that you saw, perhaps in reaction to the fields of astronomy, biology and geology (where a growing body of evidence flew in the face of Bishop Ussher's chronology of Creation) that you saw the rise of Creationism as a political and religious force.
Re:Aside from that... that isn't scientific litera (Score:3, Insightful)
Surely you mean the lack of evidence? You can't have evidence that proves that mankind didn't live with the dinosaurs. You can only have a lack of evidence that they did. We believe very strongly that they did not co-exist, but we can not be 100% because science does not allow us to prove something based on the absence of evidence of the antithesis.
Re:Surprise. (Score:3, Insightful)
You're ignoring the "try to be" part of what I quoted. For every astute, successful person there are ten "businessmen" who think the world owes them something and will try every gimmick they can find to get the status they want as fast as they can without actually learning or accomplishing anything. It doesn't matter if their role model is Donald Trump or Sean Combs, it's the same attitude, the same confidence games, the same cargo-cult mentality. And our economy is failing because of people like this and their playing with mathematics they don't understand.
Re:47% (Score:5, Insightful)
While your post is essentially an extreme and exaggerated example (and a joke), there is some level of truth to it. Language is DEFINED by people and how they use it. Perfectly written English from 1300 is nearly incomprehensible to a modern speaker because over time, people have adjusted the usage and spellings of various words, made or adopted new words, etc. We're not "wrong" with our modern dialect - it jut changed.
In a lot of ways, the academic scholars and people arguing for the "correct" way to speak are almost like little nagging anchors. They are constantly looking back at what the language's last codified accepted form was and yelling that we must conform or we're "wrong". Time has proven over and over again that society eventually ignores them. We will speak how we wish to, and eventually the scholars nagging at us will finally relent, stamp whatever the current generation is speaking as "correct" again, and start yelling at the next generation to conform once more.
I've basically accepted that unlike the scientific facts referenced in the summary, there is no "right" or "wrong" way to speak a language. If you can speak and communicate with other speakers of the language then you are doing it correctly. I'd also argue that even if a non-native speaker speaks what can be branded as a more correct dialog according to some textbook, unless they are better understood by the general population, then regardless of rules, they're certainly not a better speaker of the language.
Re:Aside from that... that isn't scientific litera (Score:3, Insightful)
It's easier to teach kids to memorize than to understand.
This is the only thing you wrote that I disagree with. Kids naturally want to learn
I don't mean it is easier for the kids. It's easier for the teacher because they don't have to put in significant effort or actually engage the students. It's easier to just read from the text. Handling the discipline issues that arise from the regiment are old hat.
I agree with your point, but the status quo is almost always easier.
Re:Aside from that... that isn't scientific litera (Score:3, Insightful)
And I submit that you're wrong.
Willful ignorance of irrelevant or distasteful information is completely harmless or even beneficial even discounting limited brain storage as a limiting factor.
For example I'm willfully ignorant of the processes through which celebrities are selected for awards Emmys or Grammies or whatever. Because it's not relevant to me and I don't care one whit about a bunch of socialites jacking each other off.
I'm willfully ignorant of the finer points of racial epithets because I find racism to be ignorant, stupid and contemptible.
I'm extremely willfully ignorant of the best way to go about sexually abusing another person, because....well, if I have to explain that to you...
It's one thing for a fictitious character to discount factual celestial science - it's entertaining and gets a reaction out of the reader, which is the point - but it's entirely another for a real person to deliberately remain ignorant of basic facts of the universe we live in.
Geography != science (Score:3, Insightful)
Bullshit serveys such as this one do nothing except reinforce the notion that science is some sort of dictionary of unrelated factoids that one can pick and choose from to suit their needs. I think the survey authors need to update their stats and count themselves amoungst those who do not understand the meaning of the term "basic science".
OTOH the Earth orbit question is a "basic science" question since it requires basic knowledge of how our calendar is related to celestial mechanics. I have no idea about the other questions since I didn't RTFA.
it's obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
Those who do not study a foreign language will always have worse grammar because it's easier to understand the purpose of grammar when comparing two languages together. Without a reference point native speakers will not have the intuition to check their sentences. I learned a lot more about English in my Spanish class than anywhere else.
Re:Aside from that... that isn't scientific litera (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Aside from that... that isn't scientific litera (Score:3, Insightful)
Merit pay wont matter or will make matters worse.
NCLB. The federal government is only measuring success, and rewarding it, for reading and math scores. This means that the schools will not give teachers enough time to adequately cover science and social studies. In Michigan that state does not even give schools adequate tests for measuring any scientific knowledge.