A quarter of Americans think the Sun goes around the Earth

[FlyingRhenquest 1]

You have to remember that about half the people are "below average"...

I'm trying to teach myself how to set things on fire with my mind. Hey... is it hot in here?

[kallend 1,646]

FlyingRhenquest

You have to remember that about half the people are "below average"...

That's just mean!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[FlyingRhenquest 1]

Andy9o8

***...how's that public education workin' out for ya?

I don't think "public education" can be painted with a single broad brush by any stretch.

Ah well, I'm an air force brat and moved around a lot. So I've sampled a good bit of the public education around the country, and the degree to which its quality varies is simply unacceptable. I was in a VERY high quality high school up near Albany, New York and a couple of low quality schools in the South (Georgia and Alabama.) The public school system in Hawaii was so bad, the folks enrolled us in a Catholic school back in the 70's (Which I credit with a lot of the blame for my atheism these days.)

In most of the places I attended school, the goal of the educational system appeared to be to seek out that fundamental curiosity about the world which every child is born with... and crush it mercilessly. I imagine it's even worse now, since they're all mandated to teach to tests, leaving no time for any sort of creativity in the classroom. Many parents and even fewer children realize that the quality of the child's education is their responsibility.

As both my parents were were from military families and experienced all this for themselves, they took it upon themselves to ride the school system mercilessly while also providing me a good home environment to learn about the world around me. Despite this, I feel like my life would have turned out a lot differently if I'd spent the entire time attending those schools in upstate New York. For one thing, I'd know a whole lot less about the "War of Northern Aggression."

I'm trying to teach myself how to set things on fire with my mind. Hey... is it hot in here?

[Andy9o8 0]

By coincidence I was fortunate enough to attend an excellent Upstate New York public school system; and it wasn't even a highly-affluent town, just basic middle class.

Oh, and anytime you'd like me to educate you about the War of Southern Treasonous Insurrection, you let me know.

[davjohns 1]

You misspelled War of Northern Agression.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Andy9o8 0]

davjohns

You misspelled War of Northern Agression.

So did you.

[rehmwa 2]

grue

People are starting to take pride in being ignorant. It's the same as the people who smile when they say "Oh I don't know how to use a computer".

I think it's less of 'pride' and more of just a social facade about people that think too much technology is a bad thing. I put it in with the same people that state "I don't have a TV in my house" - it's just another social statement they think makes them look better than others to suck up to whatever crowd they are trying to impress.

I suspect that of the people that state they don't know how to use a computer probably a huge chunk are educated environmentalists as well as backwards people that haven't had the exposure the rest of us enjoy.

it's all just masks

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Boomerdog 0]

Well it might not be as wide a brush as imagined but the brush you refer to DOES have some width to it that cannot be ignored.

[Remster 24]

Quote

Kinda like all the people who have no idea whether there's a core demographic who doesn't know this answer, but are proud of themselves for blaming religious fundamentalists.

Really?

Who else has been pushing against scientific-based education?

Remster

[lawrocket 3]

Andy9o8

***...how's that public education workin' out for ya?

I don't think "public education" can be painted with a single broad brush by any stretch.

By sheer numbers, more than half of the quarter of people who got it wrong were products of public school.

My thinking is that there is a broad 360 degree range of targets on this. Everything from Christians to unions and bureaucrats and lefties and Republicans. With that poll, I really think that the finger can be pointed at a broad swath. We can all look at ourselves.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Remster 24]

Quote

By sheer numbers, more than half of the quarter of people who got it wrong were products of public school.

You do not know that. You are assuming how the responses are distributed.

What we do know is that it is the religious fundies who are trying to undermine scientific-based facts in education.

I am not aware of any union-based drive to add mythology to science classes.

Remster

[Southern_Man 0]

Remster

You do not know that. You are assuming how the responses are distributed.

What we do know is that it is the religious fundies who are trying to undermine scientific-based facts in education.

I am not aware of any union-based drive to add mythology to science classes.

I guess nobody read the link I posted for context. The US did about as well on this survey as other developed nations did. The results were pretty much unchanged over the last 20 years. Not sure why this got as much publicity as it did. Sure, I wish out nation would do better but it doesn't appear this is the cause of lots of alarm.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[Andy9o8 0]

lawrocket

******...how's that public education workin' out for ya?

I don't think "public education" can be painted with a single broad brush by any stretch.

By sheer numbers, more than half of the quarter of people who got it wrong were products of public school.

My thinking is that there is a broad 360 degree range of targets on this. Everything from Christians to unions and bureaucrats and lefties and Republicans. With that poll, I really think that the finger can be pointed at a broad swath. We can all look at ourselves.

FWIW, and in line with post #5 above, here's another essay about this survey which helps put it in a bit more granular perspective:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/18/opinion/kirshenbaum-science-literacy/index.html?hpt=hp_t4

It's a fairly balanced piece; but one of the points made:

Quote

A lot of smart people get scientific facts wrong, and it doesn't mean they are uneducated. In the 1987 documentary "A Private Universe," Harvard students, faculty and alumni were asked what causes the four seasons. Nearly everyone interviewed incorrectly explained that seasons change when the Earth gets closer or farther from the sun in orbit rather than because of the tilt of its axis.

It's also important to remember that in polling, the way a question is phrased can influence the outcome. For example, the National Science Foundation's Indicators report found that fewer than half of Americans agree with the statement, "Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals." However, a 2009 Pew poll reported that six in 10 Americans agree that "humans and other living things have evolved over time due to natural processes." The same year, a Harris Poll reported that while just 29% of Americans agree that "human beings evolved from earlier species," 53% of the same pool of respondents "believe Charles Darwin's theory which states that plants, animals and human beings have evolved over time." In other words, language matters.

[kallend 1,646]

Andy9o8

It's a fairly balanced piece; but one of the points made:

Quote

A lot of smart people get scientific facts wrong, and it doesn't mean they are uneducated. In the 1987 documentary "A Private Universe," Harvard students, faculty and alumni were asked what causes the four seasons. Nearly everyone interviewed incorrectly explained that seasons change when the Earth gets closer or farther from the sun in orbit rather than because of the tilt of its axis.

I bet if you asked MIT students you'd get the correct answer.

Our fairly famous local weatherman (Tom Skilling) once wrote an incorrect explanation in his "Ask Tom Why" newspaper column for the shape of the analemma. I sent him the correct explanation and he just ignored it. Willfull ignorance - typical Republican.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Remster

Quote

Kinda like all the people who have no idea whether there's a core demographic who doesn't know this answer, but are proud of themselves for blaming religious fundamentalists.

Really?

Who else has been pushing against scientific-based education?

Um - how is it science-based education? Simple HISTORY would tell us this. The solar system is part of California's Fifth Grade core curriculum. Is it actually being mastered? Taught? Tested?

10% of students in the US are in private school. About That leaves 16% of public school educated people who don't know this answer assuming not a single one from private school got it right.

That tells me it's not an issue of religious education. It's not anti-science.

It's easy to point the finger at religious. But fewer people got this correct: "All radioactivity is man made." I don't think it's the religious people failing us there. Just looking at these boards after Fukushima demonstrated a near universal ignorance of basic radiaton dynamics. It ain't any churches out there misinforming people. It's just as much popular culture out there.

How many people out there are clueless about climate science but are on the side of alarmists? Are there more or fewer than clueless people who are deniers? I don't know. But if I were to put out there

.25S(1-a) = eoT^4

(which think is as important in modern times as e=mc^2) who the hell would know what it even is? If I were to say, "it's the basic equation for global climate" people still wouldn't know what the letters mean (no, I don't know how to put in Greek characters so the english lettering will have to do). When say that I believe humans have a role in climate change, it's because I am pretty damned sure that humans can and do effect both e and a in that equation.

Now, I ask: is not knowing this equation "anti-science?" No. It's a pretty damned specific thing that is either going to be taught in an advanced-level university course. Or, be learned in an autodidactic way.

It was earlier written that schools take the natural curiosity of kids and crush it. To an extent, I agree.

Anti-science? No. It's not anti-science to not know the facts on this. It's simply ignorance. I see no need to formulate a grand conspiracy when "it's not being taught enough, and what is taught isn't being learned enough" is probably a sufficient explanation.

I generally do not ascribe mal intent to something that can be adequately explained by incompetence or ignorance.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rehmwa 2]

Frankly, I doubt if 99.9% of the people alive fully understand orbital mechanics and how they are described depending on a chosen (a probably subjective) set of reference options.

Likely about 10% at least know enough to acknowledge it.


(of course, this is a tangent, but most of the people stating that the earth goes around the sun are wrong in a very similar way to those that state the sun goes around the earth - but I digress - I'd still give more partial credit to the first group than the 2nd.)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[devildog 0]

Remster

Quote

Kinda like all the people who have no idea whether there's a core demographic who doesn't know this answer, but are proud of themselves for blaming religious fundamentalists.

Really?

Who else has been pushing against scientific-based education?

Might wanna look into a guy named Johannes Kepler. Pretty smart guy. Kinda religious too (very). Came up with the whole laws of planetary motion.

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Might wanna look into a guy named Johannes Kepler. Pretty smart guy. Kinda religious too (very).

Not entirely unexpected of someone whose psycho-social indoctrination (including education at the Evangelical Seminary at Maulbronn) took place in 16th Century Germany. If it helps illustrate the tenor of the time and society in which Kepler lived, I'll mention that his mother, a healer and herbalist, was tried for witchcraft.

[Southern_Man 0]

Andy9o8

Quote

Might wanna look into a guy named Johannes Kepler. Pretty smart guy. Kinda religious too (very).

Not entirely unexpected of someone whose psycho-social indoctrination (including education at the Evangelical Seminary at Maulbronn) took place in 16th Century Germany. If it helps illustrate the tenor of the time and society in which Kepler lived, I'll mention that his mother, a healer and herbalist, was tried for witchcraft.

Kepler's Witch: An Astronomer's Discovery of Cosmic Order Amid Religious War, Political Intrigue, and the Heresy Trial of His Mother is a really interesting book about this background.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[quade 3]

devildog

Might wanna look into a guy named Johannes Kepler. Pretty smart guy. Kinda religious too (very). Came up with the whole laws of planetary motion.

The important thing to understand about Kepler is he was looking for a perfection in the orbits that would match the perfection of the universe implied by the Bible*, but his calculations proved the solar system was not the same as religious leaders or even himself wanted people to believe.

Kepler was great because he could reject the previous hypothesis based on new data. He rejected confirmation bias in favor of the observable facts.



*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Kepler#Mysterium_Cosmographicum

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

The questions themselves can be debated. I thought I saw something about a poll where the question was whether the Universe started with a big bang. I know what the questioner is getting at, but I would answer "no." Immediately I'd be presumed to be "anti-science" or a Creationist.

But I would respond, "what happened was neither big - it was incredibly small when it happened - nor a bang because sound couldn't propagate.

That's parsing the question, obviously. But a simple "yes or no" question can leave plenty of room for answers in between.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

But I would respond, "what happened was neither big - it was incredibly small when it happened

I think things that go bang are generally rated according to how big the result is, not the starting point.

30kg of plutonium and uranium is pretty small, but under the right circumstances it can get very big very quickly.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[lawrocket 3]

quade

***Might wanna look into a guy named Johannes Kepler. Pretty smart guy. Kinda religious too (very). Came up with the whole laws of planetary motion.

The important thing to understand about Kepler is he was looking for a perfection in the orbits that would match the perfection of the universe implied by the Bible*, but his calculations proved the solar system was not the same as religious leaders or even himself wanted people to believe.

Kepler was great because he could reject the previous hypothesis based on new data. He rejected confirmation bias in favor of the observable facts.



*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Kepler#Mysterium_Cosmographicum

I still think the greatest example of this is Georges LeMaitre. He is the one who looked at Einstein's equations in a way that was unconstrained by ideals of the universe. He posited expansion of the universe before Hubble discovered it. He also was the first to posit going back all the way to a primeval atom.

Poor fella got it from both sides. He was an ordained Catholic priest and the Vatican wanted to trumpet it as proof of God's creation and he had to distance himself from that. The secular establishment also ridiculed him - in large part BECAUSE of the religious implications of a moment of creation.

Religion and science can peacefully coexist. CAN. But history shows that anti-religion can turn into anti-science, too, when confirmation bias is applied to observable facts.

Hoyle died not accepting what the evidence showed because he just didn't like the idea of a finite universe.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[grue 1]

rehmwa

Frankly, I doubt if 99.9% of the people alive fully understand orbital mechanics and how they are described depending on a chosen (a probably subjective) set of reference options.

…and of the remaining 0.1%, most of them can be found in the Kerbal Space Program user database

cavete terrae.

[quade 3]

lawrocket

But history shows that anti-religion can turn into anti-science, too, when confirmation bias is applied to observable facts.

Pretty much only by the fringe. We now live in a time when evidence can be analyzed by thousands upon thousands of scientists all around the world in a very short time frame. Claims by people like Fleischmann and Pons can be checked by experimentation and shown to be irreproducible and discounted pretty quickly.

Somebody claiming something like a particular asteroid is heading toward earth and will destroy it on December 21 doesn't need to worry about confirmation bias. What he really needs to worry about is whether or not his data collection is correct in the first place because the entire set of astronomical scientists are going to very quickly determine whether it's true or not. I'm not saying science is proven by consensus, but it certainly has a tendency to be disproven by it and today that happens almost instantaneously.

I could go on and on about a handful of "creation" or other scientists denying facts, but I think you probably already get the drift.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver