David Ewing Duncan's blog
216 Million Americans Are Scientifically Illiterate (Part I)
The good news: America's science literacy rate is up from a pathetic 10 percent in 1988. The bad news: it's still only 28 percent.
David Ewing Duncan 02/21/2007
- 49 Comments
"Ignorance feeds on ignorance." - Carl Sagan
Let's start by focusing on the positive. In just 17 years, over 50 million people have been added to the rolls of Americans who can understand a newspaper story about science or technology, according to findings presented last weekend at the American Academy for the Advancement of Science's annual meeting in San Francisco.
Michigan State University political scientist Jon D. Miller, who conducted the study, attributed some of the increase in science literacy to colleges, many of which in recent years have required that students take at least one science course. Miller says people have also added to their understanding through informal learning: reading articles and watching science reports on television.
Okay, now let's talk (dare I say rant?) about the 200 million Americans out there who cannot read a simple story in, say, Technology Review or the New York Times science section and understand even the basics of DNA or microchips or global warming.
This level of science illiteracy may explain why over 40 percent of Americans do not believe in evolution and about 20 percent, when asked if the earth orbits the sun or vice versa, say it's the sun that does the orbiting--placing these people in the same camp as the Inquisition that punished Galileo almost 400 years ago. It also explains the extraordinary disconnect between scientists and much of the public over issues the scientists think were settled long ago--never mind newer discoveries and research on topics such as the use of chimeras to study cancer, or pills that may extend life span by 30 or 40 percent.
As Carl Sagan eloquently wrote in The Demon-Haunted World, ignorance reigns in our society at a moment when science is on the cusp of doing amazing and wonderful things, but also dangerous things. Ignorance, said Sagan, is not an option.
Indeed, given that we live in a culture based on science and technology, this situation is dangerous. It conjures the specter of a society in which a cadre of elites knows and understands the essentials of the science that underpins our civilization, while everyone else uses and depends on that science without having a clue. This scenario is troubling in a democracy that assumes a baseline of citizen knowledge. The outcome could be that the illiterates become so fearful of science and technology, so resentful of the exalted position of the elites, that they try to slow down the progress of science, or stop it altogether. Or the opposite could happen: the scientifically elite may grow frustrated with the illiterates and try to co-opt or even control them.
The forces of ignorance have squelched science across history, from the mob in ancient Alexandria, which chased the astronomer Aristarchus out of town for suggesting that the earth moved around the sun, to the present restrictions on federal funding for embryonic-stem-cell research.
Elites' exploiting their scientific knowledge for power is also not new. Mayan elites, for instance, used their extraordinary knowledge of mathematics, engineering, and astronomy to build great cities and temples--and sumptuous palaces for themselves--and to awe and control the masses through a religion that included ripping the hearts out of sacrificial victims. Europeans during the colonial era leveraged their advanced guns and ships into global empires at the expense of so-called "ignorant savages."
One of Miller's findings that may surprise many Americans is that Europeans and Japanese actually rate slightly lower in science literacy. To be sure, these same populations also have a much higher percentage of people who accept evolution and other basic scientific theories. America's large population of conservative religious believers may be one reason for this discrepancy, although clearly there are hundreds of millions of people in the developed world who need education.
Perhaps we should launch a scientific literacy campaign like the mid-20th-century drive that nearly tripled the rate of basic literacy worldwide. The question is, does the public really want to know how gadgets run and how organisms work? And are scientists and those who control scientific knowledge willing to share--that is, to take the time, and perhaps give up some of their influence and access to knowledge?
In other words, is this seemingly global dilemma of science illiteracy fixable or not?
In the next few days look for:
Part II: What is the media's role in science illiteracy?
Part III: Are scientists helping or hindering science literacy?
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
jsessex
14 Comments
Author Needs To Learn Also
While I am in agreement with the authors expressed disappointment in the publics ignorance of science and the basic understanding needed to maintain the underpinnings of society, the author himself demonstrates a lack of understanding of the scientific method and the skepticism which should be dominant in a scientific mind. He brings up evolution, global warming, and stem cell research as items the public just dose not understand. Each of these subjects have become so laden with politics and faith that the debate has left the scientific realm. Evolution is a good working hypothesis explaining much observed behavior. It is pushed as dogma which is supposed to be taken on faith. Any questioning of the “Facts” places a person firmly in the camp of the loons. In my opinion, what is needed is a public trained to reason and be aware of the difference between fact, theory, and faith. Faith and feelings should be reserved for dealing with religion and interpersonal relationships, never debate over science or public policy.
Reply
bmn
75 Comments
Re: Author Needs To Learn Also
couldn't possibly have said it better. the "religion of science," in which a current theory is treated as dogma that may never be questioned is certainly more dangerous as a trend than a disinterested and undereducated public. the public can and will eventually catch on - or we would still be riding in wagons because "folks jest can't trust them horseless carriages." a scientific cadre that allows themselves (already has allowed themselves, IMHO) to be overcome and infected by the political correctness bug is no better than the panel that condemned Galileo. questioning is the esence of science, and proof is only attained via experimentation - repeatable and observable phenomena. many of the sacred cows of the current science mafia do not meet even such basic criteria - TPTB should be asking why, not telling us we must simply accept them.
Reply
collin
1 Comment
Re: Author Needs To Learn Also
jsessex,
I feel you are painting a poor image of the scientific drive and community.
If some journal published a reviewed article which could show evidence to support a change in the current theory or a replacement of it it would be thought about carefully, challenged, tested again if it seemed valid.
Trouble is, current theory is most loudly contested outside the scientific process. And without any new discoveries to put on the table.
The response only seems dogmatic, it's just a good filter.
Reply
jmaximus9
86 Comments
Re: Author Needs To Learn Also
Please…………………. if science is anything, it's about debate. Everyday we learn new things that alter or disprove older ideas. Religion on the other hand is by definition unchanging. When was the last time you heard the Pope say Jesus was wrong about something? Or maybe some Islamic Cleric saying Mohammed got something really, really, really wrong? I will tell you when, NEVER! But this is exactly what happens everyday day in science.
Reply
Jesus_Christ
1 Comment
Re: Author Needs To Learn Also
Then there is the sad state of affairs regarding basic grammar. E.g., jsessex appears familiar with some advances in science, of varying antiquity, but is totally clueless about the use of the apostrophe (').
FYI, evolution happens and there is nothing you can do about it, except breed and encourage your progeny to do the same (from a moral standpoint I don't necessarily recommend this);
global warming is happening. There are a number of things we can do to alter its course, and in the end natural cycles such as carbonate weathering or the precession of the equinoxes may intervene on the side of humanity (but I wouldn't count on it).
Stem cells are neat. That's all scientists care about. There is no "scientific mafia". There are ambitious scientists to be sure, but basically scientists just try to learn new things and make a buck doing it if possible. History would suggest they are generally good for the economy (e.g, electromagnetism, the internet) even if most of them seem to be engaged in pretty esoteric activities.
Reply
spincycle
1 Comment
Re: Author Needs To Learn Also
Hilarious, and right on. Glad I wasn't the only one noticing sloppy grammar!
Reply
Guest (leolva)
Re: Author Needs To Learn Also
"FYI, evolution happens and there is nothing you can do about it[...]"
Evolution does not "just happen". You have to define it and think the whole thought through.
To give you an example, when Darwin first came up with his theory, he made a mistake. His theory was a tautology (it contained circular thinking).
It went something like this:
Theory: Evolution is the survival of the fittest.
Question: Who are the fittest?
Answer: The most likely to survive.
Question: And who is most likely to survive?
Answer: The fittest.
Question: So, who are the fittest?
Answer: The most likely to survive.
And so on…
Even Darwin’s theory was flawed (at least at first; he went on to fixing it). Nothing (that we know about through science) just happens. Theories must be sustained by empirical evidence that shows that they are useful. If a better model comes up to describe how species change over time, then we should have it substitute our current theory of evolution.
Reply