Science and the general public

[NewtonianAlch]

I recently saw some comments on t3h interwebz regarding the sciences/engineering. One comment went something like:

"I don't really trust scientists, whenever I see something in the news about science, they are always talking about "it maybe this" or "it maybe that" they are never sure"

I was instantly like wtf lolz0rdz? My first thought was maybe she had seen some theoretical physics related news scene, maybe it was during that fiasco with CERN and neutrinos traveling faster than light and assumed that's all scientists do theoretical physics. The stereotypical man with 1950's pomade-filled slick hair and thick bill gates glasses donning a white coat came to mind.

Then later a girl who was around 25 asked me what exactly was engineering, and that she hears it all the time but wasn't sure of what it was.

I thought of roundhouse kicking her in the face, but then realized I'd be helping lawyers make more money than they already deserve.

The question I pose is, how stupid is the general public when it comes to the sciences? One would think a 25-year-old person (from Australia) would have at least done up to year 10 science and being in a developed country would have a grasp of what's happening around them.

Some of us were interested in the inner-workings of devices, and why things worked the way they do since we were very young, and granted not everyone is like that, but I don't think ignorance in this day and age of the basic sciences let alone an understanding of what an "engineer" or a "scientist" is or does is acceptable. Not everyone is like this, but these two comments are just a few of what I've been seeing over the years, especially on the internet. I shudder to think how many ignoramuses there actually are.

I'm not a lawyer nor have I studied law, but it doesn't mean I think all people who study law are running around in courtrooms arguing like in Law and Order and aiming to wear a stupid wig sitting on a bench by the time they are 50.

Do people think computers, cars, electronic devices, phones just materialise from nowhere? I am wondering who they think exactly that makes these. I certainly am interested in getting in the minds of some individuals, would definitely make an interesting research paper to examine idiocy.

End rant.

 

[Evo]

Do people think computers, cars, electronic devices, phones just materialise from nowhere? I am wondering who they think exactly that makes these.

The unfortunate answer is that they don't think about it.

Do you think they wonder how a frying pan is made? Or the flooring they walk on? Or the bed they sleep in?

No.

 

[NewtonianAlch]

The unfortunate answer is that they don't think about it.

Do you think they wonder how a frying pan is made? Or the flooring they walk on? Or the bed they sleep in?

No.

Or even how vinyl records are made? Absolutely not!

 

[Evo]

For the average person - where does rain come from? The sky. Where do cell phones come from? The store.

 

[epenguin]

The general ignorance of very elementary things I find quite surprising. For instance I think it was found the majority of college students in the US didn't know the stuff trees are made of came mostly from the air not the roots. (would not be too different in UK or Europe I think). I just wonder if it is down to the schools or the students anyway how either of them manage to miss this and similar.

 

[micromass]

It's a sad evolution. I feel that there is some kind of glorification of ignorance going on. Whenever I mention to people that I like math, there are always a lot who say that they were never good at it or that they can't count without calculator. And they're proud of it as well. It's a bit like saying: "I'm retarded, woohoo". In the meanwhile, people are good in science get put down as nerds and socially awkward. There is so much social pressure not to go into science or engineering.

I feel that the media have a big role here. Everything must always be funny and flashy now. We don't have time for a thorough analysis. See how the history declined from bringing interesting documentaries to humor from Giorgio Tsoukalos.
There was a program on television lately that had as goal to promote science. This is a good thing, but it turned out to be horrible. The host of the show would never let scientists complete their sentences and always made silly jokes while they were talking. Sadly, this is what keeps people watching these shows.

We live in a world where science is so important for every major technology we have. But we also live in a culture that despises science and intelligence.

 

[NewtonianAlch]

It's a sad evolution. I feel that there is some kind of glorification of ignorance going on. Whenever I mention to people that I like math, there are always a lot who say that they were never good at it or that they can't count without calculator. And they're proud of it as well. It's a bit like saying: "I'm retarded, woohoo". In the meanwhile, people are good in science get put down as nerds and socially awkward. There is so much social pressure not to go into science or engineering.

I feel that the media have a big role here. Everything must always be funny and flashy now. We don't have time for a thorough analysis. See how the history declined from bringing interesting documentaries to humor from Giorgio Tsoukalos.
There was a program on television lately that had as goal to promote science. This is a good thing, but it turned out to be horrible. The host of the show would never let scientists complete their sentences and always made silly jokes while they were talking. Sadly, this is what keeps people watching these shows.

We live in a world where science is so important for every major technology we have. But we also live in a culture that despises science and intelligence.

Reference your point about people and maths, it reminded me of this humorous insulting article by Maddox where he lambastes those people who are proud that they suck at maths:

http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=math

The Formula 1 Williams team also noted that they were struggling to get engineers from within Britain so now they are left to hire from overseas. It's true what you say about media and perception. The general public in developed countries just do not realize the impact of technology. In countries like India and China it's the complete opposite, these notions of "nerd" and "geek" don't really exist.

If you claim to not know maths and LOL like an idiot you will probably be looked upon as the village idiot. Why? Probably because of the culture and also because of the real noticeable impact the sciences are having in human development, so the career aspiration goals for engineering is there.

 

[ZapperZ]

Note that one of the most comprehensive survey of the state of Science and Engineering, including the public's attitude and knowledge of science and engineering, is done by The National Science Foundation's Science and Engineering Indicators. The latest survey was done in 2010, and you can get the full report here:

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/

Chapter 7 covers the survey on the general public.

You'll notice that while the support for science is high, the knowledge of science from the public is not. This means that the support for science is not based on knowledge, but rather from a PERCEIVED importance. This is crucial for everyone to understand, because it means that it comes a rather shaky foundation, and it also means that the support for science can be affected by some public perception not based on facts.

Zz.

 

[leroyjenkens]

A lot of people think one scientist can do some research, and then whatever he says about that research is automatically deemed fact, printed in books, and taught in schools.

Or they think that what Charles Darwin discovered about evolution was automatically taken as fact by the scientific community, and no further research has been done on the subject for 150 years.
So for instance, they'll point out something that was incorrect about what Darwin said, and pretend like the whole theory of evolution is bunk because of that.

The things people think about evolution would be hilarious if it weren't sad at the same time.

 

[nonequilibrium]

The general ignorance of very elementary things I find quite surprising. For instance I think it was found the majority of college students in the US didn't know the stuff trees are made of came mostly from the air not the roots. (would not be too different in UK or Europe I think). I just wonder if it is down to the schools or the students anyway how either of them manage to miss this and similar.

I didn't know this ... :( Is it logical?

EDIT: Well I suppose it has to be the case since otherwise the ground would shrink away, but still... the fact you list it implies you find it super duper evident, so I'm probably overlooking a more obvious reason?...

 

[phinds]

NewtonianAlch, there is a thread somewhere on this forum talking about a new Gallup poll that says 46% of all Americans (ALL Americans !) believe that the Earth and people and dinosaurs were all created 10,000 to 11,000 years ago.

 

[nonequilibrium]

NewtonianAlch, there is a thread somewhere on this forum talking about a new Gallup poll that says 46% of all Americans (ALL Americans !) believe that the Earth and people and dinosaurs were all created 10,000 to 11,000 years ago.

Okay this is worse than the tree thing.

 

[leroyjenkens]

NewtonianAlch, there is a thread somewhere on this forum talking about a new Gallup poll that says 46% of all Americans (ALL Americans !) believe that the Earth and people and dinosaurs were all created 10,000 to 11,000 years ago.

It's true. That was about the time people in the fertile crescent were learning about agriculture. Of course, there was no Earth to farm, so they practiced on simulators until God put an Earth under their feet.

 

[Borg]

NewtonianAlch, there is a thread somewhere on this forum talking about a new Gallup poll that says 46% of all Americans (ALL Americans !) believe that the Earth and people and dinosaurs were all created 10,000 to 11,000 years ago.

I wouldn't be so worried if it was just the religious propaganda. I remember reading a poll once that stated that a significant number (on the order of 15%) of high school students in Texas didn't know which country was on the southern U.S. border. I've read too many surveys with results like this to be surprised by much anymore.

 

[aquitaine]

1/4 of American adults don't accept the idea that the Earth goes around the sun. The general ignorance is really bad on its own, but to make matters worse science is routinely attacked by anyone with a political agenda or a scam to sell. Whether it be the environmentalists, the creationists, the alternative medicine folks, and so on. That makes it impossible for people to have informed views on an increasing array of critical issues, ensuring effective policy is not rendered.

 

[collinsmark]

The general ignorance of very elementary things I find quite surprising. For instance I think it was found the majority of college students in the US didn't know the stuff trees are made of came mostly from the air not the roots. (would not be too different in UK or Europe I think). I just wonder if it is down to the schools or the students anyway how either of them manage to miss this and similar.

I didn't know this ... :( Is it logical?

EDIT: Well I suppose it has to be the case since otherwise the ground would shrink away, but still... the fact you list it implies you find it super duper evident, so I'm probably overlooking a more obvious reason?...

Yes, it's logical. The easiest way to see this is to complete the cycle. Take a log (originally from a tree, of course) and burn it. After the fire is complete, what's left on the ground? A little bit of ash, and perhaps a little bit of leftover charcoal, weighing only a small fraction of the weight of the original log. That ash is more-or-less what originally came from the soil (very roughly speaking, that is).

In Newtonian physics there is the concept of the conservation of matter/mass (it's no use bringing in relativistic effects: the relativistic E = mc² component of the mass is completely negligible for such chemical bonds). So where did the rest of the mass go? Back into the air in the form of carbon dioxide and water. The vast majority of a trees mass can be chemically recombined to form carbon dioxide and water.

Granted, much of the water originally entered the tree from the roots. But that water was rain shortly before, so even then one could argue the water came from the atmosphere too.

Trees are carbon based lifeforms. That's kind of obvious because if you only half burn the log, there are obvious presence of a lot of carbon. And where did all the carbon come from that makes up a vital chunk of the tree's mass? From the carbon dioxide in the air. The tree sucked it in through its leaves.

The tree, having carbon dioxide from the air, water (originally from atmospheric rain), a comparatively small amount of minerals from the soil, [Edit: plus a little bit of nitrogen and perhaps a small amount of other stuff that I neglected to mention,] and using the light energy from the sun, recombine the components (using chlorophyll) to form tree matter.

[Edit: For what it's worth though, I concede that the first time I thought about this was less than a year ago. I knew from high school biology the importance of carbon dioxide to the process, but it never really hit me that carbon dioxide ends up contributing so much to the tree mass.]

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

... There was a program on television lately that had as goal to promote science. This is a good thing, but it turned out to be horrible ...

Neil Degrasse Tyson is actually starting up Cosmos again in 2013. We all know that Carl Sagan's original instatement of Cosmos was a huge hit, and generated a positive outlook on not only astronomy and astrophysics, but science in general.

Tyson is extremely good at popularizing science, and I feel like if this show gets advertised well enough on PBS, hopefully it will be able to increase scientific literacy in the general public.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Take a human (one that's already dead, of course) and burn it. After the fire is complete, what's left on the ground? A little bit of ash, and perhaps a little bit of powdered bones, weighing only a small fraction of the weight of the original person. That ash is more-or-less what originally came from the soil (very roughly speaking, that is).

In Newtonian physics there is the concept of the conservation of matter/mass (it's no use bringing in relativistic effects: the relativistic E = mc² component of the mass is completely negligible for such chemical bonds). So where did the rest of the mass go? Back into the air in the form of carbon dioxide and water. The vast majority of a human's mass can be chemically recombined to form carbon dioxide and water.

Granted, much of the water originally entered the human from a glass. But that water was rain shortly before, so even then one could argue the water came from the atmosphere too.

Humans are carbon based lifeforms. That's kind of obvious because if you only half burn the human, there are obvious presence of a lot of carbon. And where did all the carbon come from that makes up a vital chunk of the human's mass? From the carbon dioxide in the air. The human sucked it in through its lungs.

The human, having carbon dioxide from the air, water (originally from atmospheric rain), a comparatively small amount of minerals from plants recombine the components to form human matter.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Take a human (one that's already dead, of course) and burn it. After the fire is complete, what's left on the ground? A little bit of ash, and perhaps a little bit of powdered bones, weighing only a small fraction of the weight of the original person. That ash is more-or-less what originally came from the soil (very roughly speaking, that is).

In Newtonian physics there is the concept of the conservation of matter/mass (it's no use bringing in relativistic effects: the relativistic E = mc² component of the mass is completely negligible for such chemical bonds). So where did the rest of the mass go? Back into the air in the form of carbon dioxide and water. The vast majority of a human's mass can be chemically recombined to form carbon dioxide and water.

Granted, much of the water originally entered the human from a glass. But that water was rain shortly before, so even then one could argue the water came from the atmosphere too.

Humans are carbon based lifeforms. That's kind of obvious because if you only half burn the human, there are obvious presence of a lot of carbon. And where did all the carbon come from that makes up a vital chunk of the human's mass? From the carbon dioxide in the air. The human sucked it in through its lungs.

The human, having carbon dioxide from the air, water (originally from atmospheric rain), a comparatively small amount of minerals from plants recombine the components to form human matter.

I'm a tree.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

Take a thread (one that's not too serious to joke about, of course) and derail it. After the derailing is complete, what's left to discuss? A little bit of the original topic, and perhaps a little bit of science about trees, weighing only a small fraction of the content of the original thread. That content is more-or-less what originally game from the OP (very roughly speaking, that is).

In Newtonian physics there is the concept of the conservation of a thread's original topic (it's no use bringing in relativistic effects: considering science is in no way applicable to a thread). So where did the original concept of the thread go? Back into the form of something far less serious than it once was. The vast majority of a human's ability to focus on one subject for an extended period of time has been chemically studied to be not very long.

Granted, much of the ideas of this thread came from other parts of the internet. But those ideas were from people, so even then one could argue that the idea of this thread was created from the ignorance of others.

Threads can be delicate lifeforms. That's kind of obvious because if only half of the posts are on topic, there is an obvious presence of a lack of concentration. And where did all the concentration come from that makes up a vital chunk of the success of a thread? From the very posters of the thread. They read it in through their very eyes.

The thread, having a set topic of discussion, an idea (originally stemmed from the ignorance of the general public), and a comparatively small amount of on topic posts combine to form a successfully derailed thread.

 

[collinsmark]

Ok, sorry. Back to original topic.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I recently saw some comments on t3h interwebz regarding the sciences/engineering. One comment went something like:

"I don't really trust scientists, whenever I see something in the news about science, they are always talking about "it maybe this" or "it maybe that" they are never sure"

I was instantly like wtf lolz0rdz? My first thought was maybe she had seen some theoretical physics related news scene, maybe it was during that fiasco with CERN and neutrinos traveling faster than light and assumed that's all scientists do theoretical physics. The stereotypical man with 1950's pomade-filled slick hair and thick bill gates glasses donning a white coat came to mind.

Then later a girl who was around 25 asked me what exactly was engineering, and that she hears it all the time but wasn't sure of what it was.

I thought of roundhouse kicking her in the face, but then realized I'd be helping lawyers make more money than they already deserve.

The question I pose is, how stupid is the general public when it comes to the sciences? One would think a 25-year-old person (from Australia) would have at least done up to year 10 science and being in a developed country would have a grasp of what's happening around them.

Some of us were interested in the inner-workings of devices, and why things worked the way they do since we were very young, and granted not everyone is like that, but I don't think ignorance in this day and age of the basic sciences let alone an understanding of what an "engineer" or a "scientist" is or does is acceptable. Not everyone is like this, but these two comments are just a few of what I've been seeing over the years, especially on the internet. I shudder to think how many ignoramuses there actually are.

I'm not a lawyer nor have I studied law, but it doesn't mean I think all people who study law are running around in courtrooms arguing like in Law and Order and aiming to wear a stupid wig sitting on a bench by the time they are 50.

Do people think computers, cars, electronic devices, phones just materialise from nowhere? I am wondering who they think exactly that makes these. I certainly am interested in getting in the minds of some individuals, would definitely make an interesting research paper to examine idiocy.

End rant.

Yes.

 

[nonequilibrium]

Hmmmm sweet ol' meta.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

Jimmy's the ultimate jokester.

 

[collinsmark]

I totally empathize with the OP, so I'll continue the general rant.

There was a morning radio show that I would often list to (my alarm is set to that station). In it, one of the show hosts would occasionally rave about his iPad and iPhone, making them out to be the greatest inventions since sliced bread. 'Nothing wrong so far, but then a couple of unrelated times, he asked one of the other hosts, "Why do we have to learn math in school? Who's ever going to use it? What's the point of anybody learning it?" Then he'd make some comment such as how nerds should just learn more sports.

I nearly jumped out of bed and smashed the radio alarm.

And the city in which I (we) live is one in which companies are based that design some of the individual, internal components for Apple products such as the iPhone and iPad (although this list of cities is quite large -- you might even live in one too). Some of his show's listeners that he is insulting are the very ones who are either directly or indirectly involved with the creation of his precious iPad. How can he be such and idiot? I asked myself. Ahhaghgg! Rant, rant rant!

I was considering writing them a letter (or email), but the show is restructured as of a couple months ago, with differences in the people hosting.

 

[ThomasT]

The question I pose is, how stupid is the general public when it comes to the sciences?

First, I enjoyed reading the replies to your OP.

Regarding your question, which I might rephrase as: how uninformed is the general public when it comes to the sciences? -- I can only guess at the answer. My friends who are working scientists or science students at some level are knowledgeable regarding scientific methods in general and informed wrt their fields. My friends who aren't professionals or students, but who've studied scientific subjects during their lives are knowledgeable wrt scientific methods in general and not very well informed wrt the current state of any particular field. My friends who have never studied scientific approaches to any subject are generally uninformed wrt scientific methods in general. I would guess that the latter group pretty much characterizes the extent to which the vast majority of the US populace is informed wrt science.

I think that this state of affairs, if generally true, is attributable to the apparent fact that the US educational system simply doesn't stress science education, but is rather a sort of warehousing of young people up to a certain age whereupon it can guiltlessly release them into the general society without any associated feeling of collective responsibility regarding their future choices and learning.

That is, afaik, the US educational system is not generally engineered to producing, and does not generally produce, scientifically literate individuals.

 

[Danger]

Take a human (one that's already dead, of course)

Sure, take all of the fun out of it...

An English stand-up comic, whose name I can't currently recall, gave a great routine at the Montreal Comedy Festival a while back. (I don't know what year it was, because they're all reruns. I just saw it again last week.) Given his presentation, I believe that it was a true story. He was on a flight, seated beside a woman from Texas. She marveled at such a huge machine taking flight, then sighed and said "I guess we'll just never know how." The whole rest of the gig was about what a wonder-filled world she must inhabit, with little people living in a cabinet in her home just to entertain her, bread going into a magic box and coming out toasted, and whatnot.

 

[NewtonianAlch]

Hear, hear. Some of you are very amusing.

 

[Alex-NL]

One shouldn't nitpick at specific facts that the general public doesn't know. For example, I recall that when professors (in all the areas of study) at MIT were asked what caused the changing seasons, a very significant portion couldn't even answer the question. Many would say that the cause was a change in distance to the sun during it's yearly orbit. It does have a small effect of course but it doesn't explain at all how the seasons on Earth change differently at different lattitudes.

The really dangerous thing, as others pointed out already, is the negative and even dismissive attitude towards science. People seem to think that it's their right to be stupid and uninterested and that they should somehow defend that right.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

This is not a simple problem, there are many factors at play and the situation is different in different countries. Personally I think there are three big issues as to why the public is at best ignorant (which is not necessarily a bad thing, not everyone needs to spend years studying our fields) and at worse misinformed;

1) The Geek Meme. At some point in the 21st century being smart, specifically in academic/science subjects, became a cultural joke in the west. This manifests throughout society in both our fiction and everyday activities; even things that go against the grain such as The Big Bang Theory TV show that try to portray "geeks" in a positive light is riddled with cliché and plays on cultural perceptions. In fact the fact that we have a concept of "geek" should be worrying enough, when the avereage person starts erroneously associating unpopular activities/traits with people interested in sciences (e.g. comic reading, bad hygeine, social awkwardness, cultural unawareness, uglyness etc) it perpetuates the good at science = bad idea. I'd like to track where this idea comes from, I'm pretty sure it may have something to do with the second world war and the mechanisation of warfare which perpetuated an idea that scientists are unethical people who have no "common sense" or general knowledge of how life works. In fact it might even extend further back than that thinking about fiction like Frenkenstein.

2) Science Media. This section I'd lump together news and advertising. Science journalism isn't just bad, it's outragously misinforming. I have many journalist friends and often they've tried to defend errors in articles by saying that to be a journalist you have to be able to simplify a story for the public but IMO this excuse doesn't hold weight because nine times out of ten the problem isn't that the science has been simplified but that in simplifying it the journalist has got the report fundamentally wrong. This in itself has two big effects; firstly it means that people distrust scientists because the reports do not match with their experience. A good example being if an article reports that eating X potentially causes cancer and then a few years later another reports that eating X potentially reduces heart disease. The layperson is left with the idea tha scientists are just flimsily making guesses and that their experience of niether of these things is valid. The second is that newspapers deliberately bias stories in order to sell. A story about how a gene for antisocial behaviour has been found will sell more (because people are afraid of antisocial behaviour) than one reporting the identification of a gene that statistically is found more often in antisocial individuals but no reason is known why.

But beyond news we also have advertisement which has done just as much if not more harm IMO. The average person is constantly bombarded by adverts in all media trying to sell products with dodgy science. Think of cosmetic and alternative medicine adverts that are everywhere! The result is that people develop an automatic distrust and because they are unaware of how real science works they lump distrust of science reports in wit shampoo adverts.

3) Teaching of Science. The general public aren't stupid, there's no reason why any average person couldn't be taught about science properly and understand as well as we do what is going on. Whilst I can only speak for the UK I think I'm safe to say that this applies elsewhere: no one is taught science in school. From a young age science classes in school are filled with endless facts, many of which are dry and boring to the majority of people (including future scientists). It is extremely rare to find someone who has had a lesson on the scientific method itself outside of university (or increasingly these days 6th form in the UK). Consequently for the majority of people all they know of science is that when they were in school they regularly sat through mostly boring lessons where facts were presented to them. I can't think of a single experiment that I ever did at school before 6th form. I did lots of activities like making circuits or pouring chemicals into beakers and the word hypothesis may have been mentioned somewhere but there was no structure, no scientific method to understand.

Science education needs to change. Everyone going through education should be able to say what the scientific method is; they should understand publication, peer-review, observation-hypothesis-experiment-conclude etc etc. Ideally scientific method would be a module every year or so, or at least every key stage. And just as importantly science lessons in school need to teach how to recognise and debunk pseudoscience as well as covering the difference between it and real science. It's far to easy now adays for a potentialyl dangerous pseudoscience to integrate in everyday lives. At best it means people will waste money buying products that don't work. At worst national policy affecting the lives of millions will be made on the back of corrupt ideology masquerading as science (this is especially dangerous if the policy is to do with healthcare).

It's easy for people to be disdainful of the general knowledge of the general public but we have to recognise that people aren't deliberately misinformed (on the contrary the majority of people are intensely curious about the world around them) but due to cultural perceptions, bad education and deliberate misinformation they don't have a clear idea. And to be honest neither do we! Academics are intensely specialised. I'm ignorant of the majority of biology and I'm a biologist, let alone the current paradigms in the study renaisance history or some other academic subject. The biggest advantage we have is an undstanding of what science is, how it works and how to spot it. If we can just impart this to the majority of people we'll be in a *much* better position even if they don't know exactly why the sky is blue or what trees are made of.

 

[NewtonianAlch]

Ryan, that was a really good post. I think a lot more could be said, but you've hit the nail on the head and got the key points that is of concern without making it tl;dr

Although I find myself asking, why is it that in the midst of this there will still be plenty of people who sat through those same boring classes that others forgot after a week, but remembered key points and found it interesting?

I think the education system can be greatly improved as anything else, but as you've outlined earlier, I think it's more the perception that's been engrained. It would be good to get an idea of how the sciences are taught in India and China as an example, India I would suspect might have a similar system to the UK, or at least derived from it.

Scientific method or not, I think as Collin earlier mentioned, some people just don't think. It is worrying that someone could honestly claim to love his iProduct and then publicly question the importance of maths. Sadly, something's cannot be taught, common sense and basic reasoning is garnered how? I don't know.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

There was a farmer who knew the length and breadth of his farm. He bought just enough seed to cover the ground and when he planted it, it just covered with no excess. Based on this, he told his friend from the city that the Earth was flat. His friend shook his head and rolled his eyes. "No", he said, "the Earth is round." "How do you know that?" asked the farmer. "I read it in a book." was the reply.

 

[KiwiKid]

3) Teaching of Science. [...]

Two years before I finished high school, they created an 'Algemene Natuurwetenschappen' (General Natural Sciences - something like that) course, which was *mandatory* for everyone at the highest level (VWO). The course looked promising to me: it was about such things as about how people found out that the Earth wasn't the center of the solar system, the scientific method, DNA and all the ethical stuff of genetics, some history of science, etc.

Unfortunately, it flopped. I think the reason for this is that every teacher taught it as if it was just a combination of your average physics-chemistry-biology courses. Thus, everyone who'd chosen such courses already found themselves wondering why they'd have to learn more of what they already knew, and those who *didn't* choose similar courses complained that they had to learn stuff they didn't care about and weren't going to use later. No teacher felt the need to correct these misconceptions.

So, yeah... Things can be done much better.

 

[btbam91]

I took a gender studies course as a general education requirement and all I heard for an entire semester was how fake science was. Shaking my damn head...

 

[R.P.F.]

I thought of roundhouse kicking her in the face, but then realized I'd be helping lawyers make more money than they already deserve.

lolololol.
But seriously, I study math yet I can hardly define what math is.