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.
"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?
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Comments
jsessex
02/21/2007
Posts:13
bmn
02/22/2007
Posts:25
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.
collin
02/22/2007
Posts:1
jmaximus9
02/22/2007
Posts:83
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.
Jesus_Christ
02/23/2007
Posts:1
spincycle
02/26/2007
Posts:1
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.
leolva
02/26/2007
Posts:3
gabrielg01
02/21/2007
Posts:396
bmn
02/22/2007
Posts:25
TFlan
02/22/2007
Posts:1
They support innovation and progress in many other ways: funding, regulation, creating a marketplace, and providing crucial feedback.
gabrielg01
02/22/2007
Posts:396
bassmang5
02/21/2007
Posts:6
immortal_200...
02/22/2007
Posts:1
bassmang5
02/27/2007
Posts:6
wtstms
02/22/2007
Posts:1
..."A pure scientist would have no qualms over killing anyone or anything in order to get results. The only thing that holds a person back is a belief in someone or something."...
This is the voice of religious zealots who cannot accept/see any other view than the one through prism of religion and their own type of morality. There is a huge number of scientists who do not *believe* in anything, in the religious sense of the word.
And one more thing - "theories" mirror facts; theories are not imaginary things. Of course, there is often a gap, or a misalignment between the theory and the facts. But this in itself is the engine of progress, that drives us to understand the unknowns.
gabrielg01
02/22/2007
Posts:396
Daveed
02/22/2007
Posts:1
jmaximus9
02/22/2007
Posts:83
To me the biggest tragedy is that so many of our youth are being denied access to the scientific method and are being forced to accept things based on faith or pure speculation. If you have a problem with any scientific conjecture, please use empicial evidence to back yourself up.
thelawof3
02/23/2007
Posts:1
God didn't invent that computer you're using to troll this message board. Science did. And remember, the basis for the culture most people prescribe to is defined in the Constitution, which is strangely absent of any mention of "God" or "a very healthy dose of belief".
Cerin
02/26/2007
Posts:3
Read the damn Kitzmiller opinion.
http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf
Jorge
02/22/2007
Posts:1
Religion [or stupidity as I call it] is given all sorts of special privileges in our country, i.e. Churches don't have to pay most taxes, but are under no obligation to actually help anybody [except to help people lighten their wallets]. Swindlers like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Peter Popoff belong in jail for being bunko artists, but instead are revered by their dupes. Pedophile Catholic priests are still treated like respected saints. Name a war, any war and religion probably has something to do with it, take Iraq for example.
Ask a Christian “How is it we see stars in the sky if the universe is only 6,000 years old and most stars are millions or billions of light years away?” They will give you some inane answer like “God works in mysterious ways!”
So am I surprised that 216 Million Americans Are Scientifically Illiterate? No.
jmaximus9
02/22/2007
Posts:83
This statement seems to imply that there is no God, and that any truly scientifically literate person would accept that idea.
I find that attitude to be very unscientific. I am curious to see the scientific proof that there is no God. Please note that I am not asking for a logical refutation of a religion or its doctrine. That would be much too easy, and quite beside the point. I am asking for the scientific proof that there is no “supreme being”.
While you’re looking for that proof, please don’t be tempted to suggest that God cannot exist "because nobody has scientifically proven God’s existence". Instead, try to remember the following basic tenet of logic:
The absence of proof does not constitute proof of absence.
Without scientific proof of God's non-existence, we must conclude that not only is ‘religion’ based on ‘belief’, Atheism is also based on ‘belief’, not science. Thus the only scientifically supported position is Agnosticism, in which people accept that there is not enough scientific evidence to ‘know’ whether God exists.
Interestingly, many people are scientifically Agnostic (accepting there is no 'scientific' proof of God), and yet still ‘believe’ there is a God (or isn’t) because of their interpretation of their life experiences. It is not irrational to ‘know’ a limit, but ‘believe’ what lies beyond that limit.
Steve
02/22/2007
Posts:5
In other words, it is an argument that 'belief' is different from the acquisition, self-correcting, refinement and application of information that distinguishes the practice of science.
Belief is more akin to 'faith' in that it may well have nothing whatsoever to do with physical reality. A competent scientist understands full well he or she is incompetent to prove or disprove (test) hypotheses regarding god(s) and well understands the difference between 'feeling' and 'thinking'.
A scientist who accepts religious metaphysics as the basis of a deeply held belief system has simply surrendered a dimension of his or her existence to the witch-doctors in a domain which science has not yet illuminated and, perhaps, never will.
That said, the shadowy horizon that enables the metaphysics of religion continues to move outward.
As the ignorance that enables anyone to get away with professing belief in anything without fear of rebuttal shrinks and one element of dogma after another is revealed to be nonsense, science is perceived as an enemy of organized religion.
The appropriate answer to whether there is/are god(s) is very different from 'belief' that there is/are or is/are-not: It remains an open question. A rigorously practicing scientist may have hypotheses regarding a domain of open questions but cannot have 'beliefs' regarding them without forfeiting his/her psychic integrity.
For some, it simply doesn't matter whether they 'believe' in the domain of religious 'faith' because it is a region where they are only competent to 'feel' - and are 'safe' from rebuttal about what/how they 'feel'. i.e., in the absense of the means to acquire/refine/correct information, one 'belief' is as good as another.
That zone, too, is eroding. Many religions have rebutted eachother and many have gone the way of the donosaurs. The Christian is the Muslim's infidel and vice-versa. If one applies science to the domain of the various 'faiths', the great diversities of 'beliefs' that have existed over time and to this day - and their cumulative effects, including those of oppression and contention between them coupled with the increased awareness of the nonsense at the roots of most of them, a very healthy skepticism regarding the metaphysics of organized religions must ensue. The evidence suggests that people, in general, are capable of 'faith' in almost anything at all - to the point of violent hysteria. The evidence suggests that this is not a 'good' thing. While there are positive effects of communal emotional states and evolved principles that are encoded in religious doctrine, it would be far better to have reason-based philosophy and laws to protect people from eachother and unite them in overcoming actual threats to survival in the real world - instead of contorting them into threats to eachother's survival in the murky world of animal emotive systems tempered inadequately, as yet, by reason. We are still evolving.
A scientist making statements about what he/she does or doesn't 'believe' is often speaking of a psychic domain different from that in which he or she 'thinks'. It is in the latter that he or she practices and applies science. A scientist who practices and applies science across all domains does not 'believe' anything in the sense of faith-based religious 'belief'. The skepticism and critical thinking necessary to the integrity of science simply preclude 'belief' without evidence. Comfort with and enthusiasm for the challenge of mining the darkness of ignorance for gems of validated information are the hallmark of science. Open questions are the raw material of science and are highly treasured.
blony
02/23/2007
Posts:1
I'm not convinced that the lack of scientific rigor, in those areas where such rigor is currently impossible, is always bad. While there are many circumstances where a lack of scientific rigor can have negative consequences, we've also made a lot of progress on the back of intuition, hope, and gut feelings that happen outside the conscious intellectual space of scientific rigor. Perhaps the real trick is to know which approach deserves the most weight in each specific situation.
Steve
02/25/2007
Posts:5
Ok..I say I am the ruler of Jupiter and all its moons. The gas people there know me as Lord Jmaximus, the creator. You have no proof otherwise, so by your logic it must be true!
The absence of proof means just that, no proof.
jmaximus9
02/26/2007
Posts:83
You can’t prove non-existence solely by showing that there is no proof of existence. Prior to the first measurements of radio waves, nobody could prove their existence. But our inability to prove their existence didn’t stop radio waves from bouncing all around the universe did it? The absence of proof does not constitute proof of absence. This is simple logic, not belief or faith.
Since there is no current scientific proof that God does or doesn’t exist, we have to leave it an open question, scientifically speaking. All other positions, including Atheism, are based on belief without proof.
Steve
02/26/2007
Posts:5
This statement seems to imply that there is no pink unicorn, and that any truly scientifically literate person would accept that idea.
I find that attitude to be very unscientific. I am curious to see the scientific proof that there is no pink unicorn. Please note that I am not asking for a logical refutation of a religion or its doctrine. That would be much too easy, and quite beside the point. I am asking for the scientific proof that there is no “pink unicorn”.
While you’re looking for that proof, please don’t be tempted to suggest that the pink unicorn cannot exist "because nobody has scientifically proven the pink unicorn’s existence". Instead, try to remember the following basic tenet of logic:
The absence of proof does not constitute proof of absence.
Without scientific proof of the pink unicorn's non-existence, we must conclude that not only is ‘religion’ based on ‘belief’, Atheism is also based on ‘belief’, not science. Thus the only scientifically supported position is Agnosticism, in which people accept that there is not enough scientific evidence to ‘know’ whether pink unicorns exists.
Interestingly, many people are scientifically Agnostic (accepting there is no 'scientific' proof of pink unicorns), and yet still ‘believe’ there is a pink unicorn (or isn’t) because of their interpretation of their life experiences. It is not irrational to ‘know’ a limit, but ‘believe’ what lies beyond that limit.
Cerin
02/26/2007
Posts:3
You might want to try substituting the phrase “radio waves” for “pink unicorn” and imagine presenting your spoof prior to the first human measurement of radio waves. Your spoof would have been very popular, I think. And wrong, as it turned out. That's why, in these situations, science sits on the fence.
Steve
02/26/2007
Posts:5
csfield
03/17/2007
Posts:1
I'm talking about a study that says millions of people in the developed world, never mind the devleoping world, who don't know what DNA is, or ozone. What does this have to do with religion? It seems rather defensive of those who do not agree with evolution (and heliocentricity?) to take my comments as an attack against their scientific literacy. I assume that people reading this blog know what DNA and ozone mean -- that's the point! Millions of Americans don't! These are the same Americans that can tell you everything about Anna Nicole Smith; and many of them can competently read a box score. Put in this context, it doesn't seem too much to ask that society figure out some way to make science more compelling, or to get out the message that DNA is worth knowing about and, infact, is cool.
But since evolution has been brought up, I second those commenters that have pointed out that when theories such as evolution and heolocentricity have held up for over a century and continue to amass proof are very solid theories indeed -- as any scientifically literate person should know.
Also, as I frequently suggest to creationists who write to me about evolution, why is it that in the last hundred years or so certain believers have decided that an all-powerful god could not have both created the universe and used evolution as His method of creation? To deny this might have happened seems to limit God -- indeed, St. Augustine and virtually every theologian and Christian who wrote on the topic of science and earthly matters vis-a-vis religious doctrine suggest that it is foolish for spiritual people to make claims about God's workings in the physical world because humans cannot understand His ways, and will only get into trouble when religious tenets about physical matters contradict empirical evidence. This is what got the Catholic Church (and the Protestant Church, too, at the time) in trouble about sticking to the theory of an Earth-centered universe despite a great weight of evidence that this is not true. As for evolution, the solution seems rather simple -- if one believes in God and creationism, why limit Him? Why spend so much time trying trying to count years backward in the bible to some date about 6,000 years ago. How long is a year to God? How long is a day when He in Genesis is creating the cosmos? Could a day to God be a billion years, or five billion years?
davidewingdu...
02/23/2007
Posts:11
1611kjb
02/23/2007
Posts:3
gabrielg01
02/23/2007
Posts:396
First, a criticism:
How can you say "It seems rather defensive of those who do not agree with evolution...to take my comments as an attack against their scientific literacy" when you said in the original post "This level of science illiteracy may explain why over 40 percent of Americans do not believe in evolution..."? Stop being disingenuous! You clearly took a potshot at 40+ percent of Americans, and now you're acting all innocent. Either apologize, or else defend your words. As it is, you are simultaneously sickening both Richard Dawkins and Jerry Falwell. Plus, your potshot doesn't stand up to the data reported in your own article. Europeans scored worse, even though the great majority of them believe in evolution. Indeed, the simplest reading of the data is that a more scientifically literate population is less likely to believe in evolution. (!)
Second (to get back on topic), a suggestion:
Perhaps the reason why 20% of Americans say the sun orbits the earth is because they don't understand the word "orbit." Maybe they think orbit means "makes something go around it." That would still be stupid, but it is a vocabulary problem, not a science problem. Also, technically speaking, the earth does not orbit the sun, any more than the sun orbits the earth. They mutually orbit their center of mass, which is inside the sun. (Actually, the presence of the other planets makes things even more convoluted, but you see my point.) It could be that a few percents of the 20% of "ignorant" people were smart-alecks.
Third, a defense of you:
I understand the point of the critic who didn't like you saying that our culture is based on science and technology, but I think he is being nitpicky and disingenuous also. We all know what you meant, especially since you mentioned the danger to democracy in the same paragraph.
Fourth, another criticism:
You said "The forces of ignorance have squelched science across history,... [for example] the present restrictions on federal funding for embryonic-stem-cell research." You really just don't get it. Those funding restrictions are not the result of ignorance. They are based on moral concerns about when human life begins. Your statement is either ignorant or arrogant or (most likely) knee-jerk liberal claptrap that you just threw in without much thought.
Sincerely,
dmm
dmm
02/23/2007
Posts:191
Well, that would prove that they're illiterate, right?
Re: Moral concerns over stem cell research -
Those opposed are opposed because they either don't know or don't care about the science. They're hypocritical too - why isn't there an outcry over in vitro fertilization? It's because they don't understand the science, or they don't care.
Some people need ritual and belief to make life meaningful to them, and that's fine. Believe whatever you want. But when it comes to making decisions that affect other people, you'd better base those decisions on the consensus reality. Doing so requires educating yourself so that you're no longer ignorant, or listening to people who have done so, which is why science education is so important. Be as religious as you want, but do it on your own time.
Mr. Gunn
02/24/2007
Posts:3
I reply: There is a world of difference between a vocabulary mixup and a conceptual misunderstanding. Even so, I agree that it is still scary to think that 20% of Americans don't know what "orbit" means.
You said: "Re: Moral concerns over stem cell research - Those opposed are opposed because they either don't know or don't care about the science."
I reply: That is one of the most asinine and arrogant statements I've ever heard. It actually takes my breath away. You are probably beyond help, but try the following link anyway:
http://www.stemcellresearch.org/
You said: "They're hypocritical too - why isn't there an outcry over in vitro fertilization? It's because they don't understand the science, or they don't care."
I reply: IVF is used by a relatively small number of people who are doing it to try to get pregnant. Yes, some embryos don't get used, but a) there is a movement to adopt them, b) the official position of many churches is that no more IVF embryos should be created than will be used, c) IVF clinics are cutting way back on the number created because of moral qualms, d) many couples give unused IVF embryos the same burial they would give to a stillborn child. And by the way, people can't be hypocritical and ignorant at the same time. Please pick one accusation and stick with it.
You said: "Some people need ritual and belief to make life meaningful to them, and that's fine. Believe whatever you want. But when it comes to making decisions that affect other people, you'd better base those decisions on the consensus reality. Doing so requires educating yourself so that you're no longer ignorant, or listening to people who have done so, which is why science education is so important. Be as religious as you want, but do it on your own time."
I reply: Gosh, where should I start? First off, the "consensus reality" is that there is a God. Therefore, I suggest that you educate yourself, or else listen to me. Be as atheistic as you want, but do it on your own time. Second, do you realize that ALL public policy decisions (including laws) are ultimately based on someone's morality? It is simply impossible to "check my religion at the door." And anyway, why should I? Just because you think it's wrong? What makes your sense of right and wrong superior to mine? Why don't YOU check YOUR religion at the door? Finally, we do agree on three things: science education is important, scientific knowledge (including both facts and theories that seek to explain those facts) should be taken into account in arriving at decisions, and the general public is woefully ignorant of science. (Sadly, they are also woefully ignorant of history, geography, current events, technology, art, music, literature, .... Oh well.)
dmm
02/27/2007
Posts:191
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week947/profile.html
dmm
02/27/2007
Posts:191
Religion provides stability. Religion does not change - at least rational religion does not change. Consequently, the two do not mix.
Science, however, should be premised on the minimum amount of variables possible for the experiment. For every variable, there is a near exponential, perhaps logarithmic increase in causative factors. However, modern science does not seem to be embracing that fact.
To believe in evolution, you have to take several things on faith, radio-carbon dating, radio-isotope dating, steady state theory of the universe, constancy of light and gravitation and constancy of elemental reactivity. None of these things are proven, but it takes every one of them to be perfectly understood, unmistakably applied to the cosmos and linearly enforced to actually believe that evolution has occurred. Then you have to believe the bulk of evolved things have passed without a trace, are not evolving now and, surpassing all reason, that the age of the universe has provided inadequate time statistically for each of the required iteration to have occurred to get us where we are today. That’s not science, it’s faith. It just happens to be a faith without God. If your foundational “scientific” premise is that things did not happen from an intelligent plan, then you must believe in other unknown forces that did the things which are not observable, demonstrable or reproducible.
Even Global warming advocates need to come up with what environment created the ice they are so worried about melting. At one time, it too was water. It was water way before the industrial age did anything to affect it. It appears we are really returning back to a former stage that once existed. That is probably a good thing. The ice cap may well have actually been formed by the giant dust cloud created by a meteor impact that froze the earth. We are finally getting back to the state the earth was in before the catastrophe. Global warming is a good thing. However, the earth is doing it all by itself and man is having no effect on it. It has been warming since the glacial age passed (that was here as a result of the great calamity).
The reason americans are scientifically illiterate is because the "truth" has become so completely contradictory, that people no longer think of science as knowledge, it is simply opinion that changes every time you open a book. I used to think I was smart because I knew we had nine planets. Now I find out we have only eight.
1611kjb
02/23/2007
Posts:3
I believe that most scientists understand that there may be a better way of explaining something that the way they currently do. Otherwise they'd just put down their instruments and go home, right? So don't malign the efforts of scientists, who are only trying to explain the world as best they can without invoking magic, by suggesting universal hubris on their part. Indeed, scientists make their living by proving themselves and others wrong.
Mr. Gunn
02/24/2007
Posts:3
You should understand that even as science changes, some things are "set in stone." To use gravity as an example, we know for certain, from experience, that stones dropped from your hand will fall to the ground. We also know that they accelerate, as if they were being pulled to the ground with a constant force, and we know that this acceleration is 9.8 m/sec/sec. We can make private plans and public policy based on this knowledge. If we woke up tomorrow, and this were even a little different, we would be flabbergasted.
On the other hand, some things are not set in stone. We know that general relativity (GR) is a good description of gravity. It has passed stringent numerical tests at the planetary and solar system scales, and has demonstrated great explanatory power on the galactic and even intergalactic scales. And yet we strongly suspect that GR is fundamentally flawed, because it seems to be inconsistent with quantum mechanics. So if some measurement were shown convincingly to disagree with the predictions of GR, we would not be surprised. Instead, we'd be whooping with enthusiasm and excitement, because the new measurement might be the clue to fixing it, or even replacing it. Yet the new theory would still have to reduce to GR in the proper limits.
You should understand also that religion is the same way. Some things are set in stone, others can change. Taking Christianity as an example (since I know it better than other religions), the fundamental doctrine of Christ's divinity is set in stone. No amount of social change can alter it. One cannot even conceive of any social change that would alter it. On the other hand, the Christian teachings about the proper relationship of slaves and masters have been altered because society has been changed (to a great extent by Christianity, but also by other forces). Yet the underlying principles remain, and can be applied to employer/employee relations.
One last comment: Whenever someone says "this doctrine is set in stone," be he theologian or scientist, you should carefully examine that idea. He might very well be right. Just be careful.
dmm
02/27/2007
Posts:191
robbie
02/23/2007
Posts:1
theta
02/23/2007
Posts:2
theta
02/23/2007
Posts:2
a) How old is the Earth? (slanted)
b) According to scientists, how old is the Earth? (still slanted)
c) According to most currently-practicing geologists, how old is the Earth? (fair)
My point is that researchers need to careful that they are assessing people's knowledge rather than their beliefs. People can know a good bit of geology and still be young-Earth creationists. Mainstreamers can put lots of labels on such people, but calling them "ignorant" is unfair and just plain cowardly.
dmm
02/23/2007
Posts:191
On the contrary, sir, someone would in fact be "religiously illiterate" if they didn't know who Jesus was. No question about it.
"People can know a good bit of geology and still be young-Earth creationists."
If by "good bit" you mean that which is learned in kindergarten, yes. Someone who proclaimed that "gravity is just a theory, not a fact" could call himself a physicist, but no one else would.
"Mainstreamers can put lots of labels on such people, but calling them "ignorant" is unfair and just plain cowardly."
The definition of ignorant is "someone who lacks knowledge". As such, it's not a derogatory label, simply a descriptive one. If they had called them stupid, that would be insulting. It's entirely possible that a intelligent person could have been home-schooled in St. Petersburg, FL and never learned what everyone else has. At that point he would merely be ignorant.
I find it interesting that you use the term "mainstreamers". What, in your opinion, should decisions of public policy be based on if not the mainstream opinion?
Mr. Gunn
02/24/2007
Posts:3
1. You responded with: "On the contrary, sir, someone would in fact be "religiously illiterate" if they didn't know who Jesus was. No question about it."
I reply: So, if you don't believe that Jesus was the Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and God the Son, fully man and fully God, born of a virgin by the power of the Holy Spirit, and the only Way to salvation, then you are religiously illiterate, right? I'm guessing you don't agree with that. Can you understand that there is a big difference between understanding the teaching of Christianity and believing the teaching of Christianity? In the same way, there is a big difference between understanding the theory of evolution and believing the theory of evolution. Indeed, one can not only understand but even use a scientific theory without actually believing it. For example, many of the founders of quantum mechanics did just that. (Einstein being the most famous example.) And you forget (or don't know) that Copernicus introduced his heliocentric system of astronomy by saying that he couldn't prove it and didn't even necessarily believe it, but it sure was useful. You also forget (or don't know) that Newton did not believe in "action at a distance," yet this did not stop him from developing gravitational theory.
2. You responded with: "If by 'good bit' you mean that which is learned in kindergarten, yes."
I respond: You might want to read the news. Lately there's been a big to-do because a man was granted a PhD in paleontology from the University of Rhode Island, even though he believes in young-Earth creationism (YEC). Needless to say, YEC was not the subject of his dissertation. Instead, he started from the presupposition that the standard models of geology and paleontology are correct interpretations of the available data. He did not personally agree with this presuppostion, but realized that he needed to become a thorough (and certified) expert at the mainstream interpretation before attempting to propound an alternative (in this case, YEC). Despite the rabid denunciations which have ensued, anyone with any knowledge of science knows that this is quite common behavior among scientists.
3. You responded with: "Someone who proclaimed that 'gravity is just a theory, not a fact' could call himself a physicist, but no one else would."
I respond: See the discussion of Newton above. Most people would call him a physicist (although he would have called himself a natural philosopher). You seem unable to distinguish between facts and theories, which are explanations of facts. Perhaps you should have paid attention past kindergarten.
4. You responded with: "The definition of ignorant is 'someone who lacks knowledge'. As such, it's not a derogatory label, simply a descriptive one. If they had called them stupid, that would be insulting."
I respond: Since the definition of stupid is 'someone who lacks intelligence,' it is not derogatory, simply descriptive. Therefore I know you would not be insulted if I said that you are stupid. Right?
5. You responded with: "It's entirely possible that a intelligent person could have been home-schooled in St. Petersburg, FL and never learned what everyone else has. At that point he would merely be ignorant."
I respond: Why bring up homeschooling? Evidence from educational research clearly shows that it is MUCH more likely for intelligent public schooled students to come out woefully ignorant. After all, hardly any of that 40% of Americans who don't believe in evolution were homeschooled. So, even using your own (faulty) criterion for ignorant, you can't possibly blame homeschooling. You should be careful about betraying your liberal bias so obviously.
6. You responded with: "I find it interesting that you use the term 'mainstreamers'. What, in your opinion, should decisions of public policy be based on if not the mainstream opinion?
I respond: Personally, I like facts, and also the Constitution. But that's just me. To be more clear (and less snarky): If we based public policy strictly on mainstream opinion, then we would have teacher-led prayer and devotional Bible reading in our public schools. I am assuming you are not in favor of that. Ironically, I'm not either (probably for different reasons). On the other hand, I agree that mainstream opinion should not be totally discounted. Keeping the same example, I would not have a problem with students taking turns to open the school day with a 5-minute devotional reading from a religious or philosophical book of their choice. Getting back to evolution, the mainstream opinion in the U.S. (as shown by poll after poll) is that evolution should be taught thoroughly, BUT that it should be taught as a theory, AND that the many significant problems with and weaknesses of the theory should also be taught. Those students who don't believe in evolution will take these problems/weaknesses as evidence that the theory is wrong. Those who do believe in it will take these problems/weaknesses as exciting areas for future research. This is the way science should be taught, and usually IS taught, except for the sacred cow of evolution. What we have here is a very un-American situation: the people to whom I refer as "mainstreamers," i.e., the majority of academia and the educational establishment, refuse to listen to mainstream opinion. Why are these elites so frightened of educating the masses (as opposed to indoctrinating them)? Why do they want to keep people ignorant? If the emperor has clothes, then why can't the students look? Their attitude is very much like that of the "mainstreamers" in Copernicus's day who refused to listen to any criticism of the Ptolemaic system, which had given many useful results, had much explanatory power, was the foundational theory of astronomy, and had stood uncontested for a millenium. Fortunately for science, most people were homeschooled in those days.
dmm
02/27/2007
Posts:191
The U.S. Constitution provides NO authorization for the Federal Government to fund science...except in the national defense!
jerry T. Searcy
j.t.searcy
02/23/2007
Posts:1
Cerin
02/26/2007
Posts:3
Also, if you have travelled overseas, be aware of sample bias. The people you worked, studied, or hung out with were NOT a random sample - as people who interacted with foreigners, they were very likely to be disproportionately educated, cultured, and intelligent. This gives the illusion that residents of foreign countries are smarter than they really are.
Ogemaniac
02/28/2007
Posts:1
http://www.minedu.fi/export/sites/default/OPM/Koulutus/artikkelit/pisa-tutkimus/yhteenveto_tuloksista_2003/Pisa_averages1.pdf
Espetri
03/20/2007
Posts:1