Americans like science, but don't understand it

[mgb_phys]

"Americans like science. Overwhelming majorities say that science has had a positive effect on society and that science has made life easier for most people. "

http://people-press.org/report/528/

 

[AUMathTutor]

I love it.

I think that people should be aware of scientific issues, whether or not they agree with certain scientific conclusions. For instance, while it's alright to question the idea of global warming's being caused by human activity, or macroevolution, you should at least know enough about them to ace a quiz like that one.

Jeez. If you don't know that much, you can't pretend your opinions are justified.

 

[AUMathTutor]

(I think that the public's ignorance is a failure on the part of the scientific community.)

 

[negitron]

That's a completely ridiculous statement. It's a failure of the educational system, not the scientific community.

 

[lisab]

Hard to make any sort of interpretation of this, since the same survey wasn't done in any country but the US.

It would be interesting to see what the general public's attitude is in different countries with regard to science.

 

[mgb_phys]

The understanding of science questions are particulalrly bad:
http://people-press.org/reports/images/528-13.gif
The FDA does say aspirin can treat heart attacks but doesn't recommend taking it as a precaution (although most doctors do)
GPS - Is that really science?
Water on mars, it was announced then denied, then argued that the new reporting was hasty, I don't know if the general opinion is that there is currently water on Mars.
Pluto - did they change their minds again or not - I don't know
And the worse one - "antibiotics do not kill viruses as well as bacteria" - answer that over the phone, without having to parse how many negatives are present to get a true false answer.
Electrons are smaller than atoms - that's just remembering words. Is a type I supernova brighter/fainter than a type II ?

 

[ZapperZ]

Compare this with the NSF's 2008 Science and Technology Indicators.

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/c7/c7h.htm

Zz.

 

[Cyrus]

We need a cultural shift in thinking so that when people make statements such as:

"I'm bad at math"

or

"I don't like science"

they get a dirty look and the snide remark they deserve. I really can't think of many examples where science is thought of in a positive light.

My hypothesis is that people view science as an attack on their religion (evolution, stem cell research), and so they automatically turn away from it. As a society we readily accept a lot of holistic crackpot medical therapy methods, astrology charts in the newspapers, you can find more examples yourself. The point is that these are all diametrically opposed to the scientific method and what it stands for. There is a major disconnect between the public and science. The keynote speaker at my friends graduation (engineering) premised his speech on how the graduating class has the responsibility to educate the ignorant public on science because the situation has become so bad. The speaker is a former dean of engineering at a top 10 engineering school, which took place in spring of 2008.

These crackpot types of methodologies and pseudoscientific methods really should be laughed at publicly and humiliated for the stupidity that it is. It's todays version of alchemy.

 

[Phrak]

I'd like to see the correlation with a similar poll concerning Pizza, pizza makers and pizza eaters.

I predict similar results.

 

[Cyrus]

I'd like to see the correlation with a similar poll concerning Pizza, pizza makers and pizza eaters.

Expect for the fact that knowing how a pizza is made is irrelevant to how a society progresses and maintains its global influence, economy, and status.

 

[Phrak]

Expect for the fact that knowing how a pizza is made is irrelevant to how a society progresses and maintains its global influence, economy, and status.

This constitutes an exception to...what?

 

[Cyrus]

You are quite right. Replace the first sentence to read:

Knowing how a pizza is made is irrelevant to how a society progresses and maintains its global influence, economy, and status. Therefore, I have no idea why you brought this up - or what intelligent point you are making.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

We need a cultural shift in thinking so that when people make statements such as:

"I'm bad at math"

or

"I don't like science"

they get a dirty look and the snide remark they deserve. I really can't think of many examples where science is thought of in a positive light.

There are many people who are not interested in mathematics and science. Why ought they be deemed dispicable for this? The vast majority of people learn and pass high school through rote memorization without really learning the subject.* They just aren't all that smart. Its not their fault or anything that they ought to be blamed for.

*Edit: by the way do you want a source on that? ;-)

 

[rootX]

Knowing how a pizza is made is irrelevant to how a society progresses and maintains its global influence, economy, and status.

Knowing how to cook food (pizza) is as relevant as knowing how politics, ethics/laws, businesses, languages, economics, and cultures work and contribute to the society progress/economic growth (but one does not need to know everything as far specialization is at work). Science is no different than other fields. Where would be the science if people simply don't have enough food to eat/money to spend (due to recession, politics or other reasons which might be caused due to people ignorance about those fields)?

 

[Phrak]

You are quite right. Replace the first sentence to read:

Knowing how a pizza is made is irrelevant to how a society progresses and maintains its global influence, economy, and status. Therefore, I have no idea why you brought this up - or what intelligent point you are making.

The world does not revolve around science, no matter how much we might wish it. On the other hand Pizza is round, and can be delivered fresh in a matter of minutes.

 

[Cyrus]

The world does not revolve around science, no matter how much we might wish it. On the other hand Pizza is round, and can be delivered fresh in a matter of minutes.

Sorry, but this "statement" is flat out wrong.

I would strongly suggest you read the book:

[1] "https://www.amazon.com/dp/0801883601/?tag=pfamazon01-20" by McClellan and Dorn

so that you may speak intelligibly about this topic and not waste everyones time with nonsensical statements.

Note[1]: Please read the reviews in the link above, and who is making them. This book I referenced you to isn't some crap written by and old bozo.

 

[Phrak]

Let me try again, changing mgb's quote to the wonderful world of pizza.

You see it everywhere. A myopic proclivity to one's profession. For firemen it's fire safety. For MD's it's maintaining health. For policemen it's all about fighting crime. For lawyers reality is dictated by law. Can scientists do better in objectivity?

"Americans like science. Overwhelming majorities say that science has had a positive effect on society and that science has made life easier for most people. "

http://people-press.org/report/528/

becomes

"Americans like pizza. Overwhelming majorities say that they like pizza and their friends like pizza too. Half-hour pizza delivery has made life easier for many people.

 

[Cyrus]

Knowing how to cook food (pizza) is as relevant as knowing how politics, ethics/laws, businesses, languages, economics, and cultures work and contribute to the society progress/economic growth (but one does not need to know everything as far specialization is at work). Science is no different than other fields. Where would be the science if people simply don't have enough food to eat/money to spend (due to recession, politics or other reasons which might be caused due to people ignorance about those fields)?

Science is different than other fields, and your argument is terrible. I'm sorry, there is no other way to say it. I would recommend you read the book I linked and come back and have this discussion because you really don't have any firm footing for what you just typed at all.

I will give you a very, very brief run through of the book: Technology, through science, has lead to the progression of countries and allowed for the expansion and betterment of life. It is vital that society be scientifically literate for its survival and furtherance into the future.

 

[Cyrus]

There are many people who are not interested in mathematics and science. Why ought they be deemed dispicable for this? The vast majority of people learn and pass high school through rote memorization without really learning the subject.* They just aren't all that smart. Its not their fault or anything that they ought to be blamed for.

*Edit: by the way do you want a source on that? ;-)

I'm not saying that they have to be interested in science, but they need to have an understanding of basic science, and -at the very least- what the scientific method is and what it means.

 

[negitron]

It is vital that society be scientifically literate for its survival and furtherance into the future.

If this were a true statement, then we wouldn't be here today, since the vast majority of society has never been scientifically literate throughout the entire span of human history. On this basis alone, your argument is invalidated.

 

[Huckleberry]

"Americans like pizza. Overwhelming majorities say that they like pizza and their friends like pizza too. Half-hour pizza delivery has made life easier for many people.

There is a lot of science involved in getting that pizza to my door in 30 minutes or less; Agriculture, irrigation, metallurgy, electricity, refrigeration, high-temperature ovens, telephones, computers and combustion engines. In a game of CivII, pizza delivery is researched after all these things. It's easier to get to the moon and win the game so I usually just skip it.

People are aware that science makes their lives easier.

 

[Cyrus]

As for the article in the OP, I find the fourth paragraph particularly interesting:

While the public holds scientists in high regard, many scientists offer unfavorable, if not critical, assessments of the public’s knowledge and expectations. Fully 85% see the public’s lack of scientific knowledge as a major problem for science, and nearly half (49%) fault the public for having unrealistic expectations about the speed of scientific achievements.

[1] http://people-press.org/report/528/

I don't agree with the conclusion of the study about the public having unrealistic expectations about the speed of science because of moors law. Ray Kurzweil does a very good explanation as the rate of scientific progress here:



Given his presentation, it's very reasonable for the public to have high expectations on the rate of scientific progress, as it's an exponential growth phenomenon.

Edit: This is the one I was looking for:

HMYVH-hBGWg[/youtube]

 

[Cyrus]

If this were a true statement, then we wouldn't be here today, since the vast majority of society has never been scientifically literate throughout the entire span of human history. On this basis alone, your argument is invalidated.

You failed to understand anything I said, and you are wrong. I said that science is the root cause that has allowed societies to progress and advance and maintain socio-economic power. For this very reason, it is imperative that the United States quickly adopt a culture of scientific literacy or it will be surpassed by India and China.

 

[negitron]

You failed to understand anything I said, and you are wrong. I said that science is the root cause that has allowed societies to progress and advance and maintain socio-economic power.

No, you did not. I quoted what you said. If you meant something different it's no one's fault but yours for others misunderstanding you.

 

[Cyrus]

I said:

It is vital that society be scientifically literate for its survival and furtherance into the future.

You did not understand it, and your 'counterargument' really provided nothing of substance. I'm sorry. You are free to argue otherwise, if you can source it.

 

[negitron]

I understood what your words said and it is this to which I responded. Again, if you meant something different, the fault is yours.

 

[Phrak]

If one wishes to advocate the importance of science in a scientific manner from within, one should be prepared to supply scales by which values are measured and compared. Is this to be discussed scientifically or otherwise?

 

[Phrak]

There is a lot of science involved in getting that pizza to my door in 30 minutes or less; ...

There's "a lot" of pizza delivery involved in keeping scientists fueled to learn and do science.

Do you see the problem here? You want to demonstrate the import of science, yet a scale of measure and comparison is missing.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I'm not saying that they have to be interested in science, but they need to have an understanding of basic science, and -at the very least- what the scientific method is and what it means.

You expect people to learn, understand, and still remember after high school their basic science even though they have no interest in it? Are there not things that you learned in high school or college that you had little interest in and only barely remember any of it?

Certainly its a good goal to shoot for but it does not seem to make much sense to hold these people in contempt for something that is only natural.

I might make arguements about the importance of things such as art to our modern society but I think I would be fully on the losing end of such an argument on this forum.

 

[Cyrus]

You expect people to learn, understand, and still remember after high school their basic science even though they have no interest in it? Are there not things that you learned in high school or college that you had little interest in and only barely remember any of it?

No, I don't have an expert understanding of it - but I make it a point to understand the major points so that I can understand it when someone talks about it and follow along well enough.

Certainly its a good goal to shoot for but it does not seem to make much sense to hold these people in contempt for something that is only natural.

It's not natural, it's being lazy.

I might make arguements about the importance of things such as art to our modern society but I think I would be fully on the losing end of such an argument on this forum.

I think art is something that people need to learn about as well. I'm not an art critic, but I've educated myself enough on art not to make ignorant statements like: "I can paint a bunch of lines like that", which is often touted by people who don't understand art and think it's simply about making a vase look like a vase on a canvas.

 

[Cyrus]

Arthur Benjamin makes interesting points about basic mathematics that should be taught in high schools, but isn't, here:

 

[Chi Meson]

If it were one or the other, I'd prefer the company of socially intelligent people to scientifically intelligent ones. You can be good at math and have a good foundation in science, but it doesn't justify treating people like dirt, especially for having a different taste in knowledge than you.

Also, if you want to be able to survive independent of mainstream society, indigenous knowledge far outweighs scientific knowledge.

You appear to be suggesting that scientific intelligence and social capabilities are exclusive; they are not, and it should not be expected to be so.

 

[rootX]

You appear to be suggesting that scientific intelligence and social capabilities are exclusive; they are not, and it should not be expected to be so.

I) Some people can be scientific intelligent but socially incapable.
II) Some people can be socially intelligent but have no scientific intelligence.
III) Some people are both scientifically and socially intelligent but not all people fall into this category.

Pythagorean is only talking about I or II which do exist.

 

[Chi Meson]

I) Some people can be scientific intelligent but socially incapable.
II) Some people can be socially intelligent but have no scientific intelligence.
III) Some people are both scientifically and socially intelligent but not all people fall into this category.

Of course they don't. In fact very few people fall into any clear-cut category at all, including I and II in the above table.

As to Pythagoras' post, I think there was an implied reference within it that I didn't pick up on the first read.

 

[Pythagorean]

Of course they don't. In fact very few people fall into any clear-cut category at all, including I and II in the above table.

As to Pythagoras' post, I think there was an implied reference within it that I didn't pick up on the first read.

I didn't mean to imply that everyone was one or the other. I was just saying that given a choice between the two extreme situations, I would prefer the more socially intelligent company.

I definitely don't mean to spread the stereotype that all scientists are socially inept. Also, I don't really mean to cut on that kind of social inadequacy. The scientist stereotype often refers to nervous and awkward. This may not mark a social elite, but they're eons ahead of crass and pretentious (which is what I was mostly referring to).