Cyrus
- 3,237
- 17
Arthur Benjamin makes interesting points about basic mathematics that should be taught in high schools, but isn't, here:
Last edited by a moderator:
The discussion centers on the disconnect between American public perception of science and their actual understanding of scientific concepts. Participants highlight that while Americans generally appreciate the benefits of science, there is a significant gap in scientific literacy, particularly regarding topics like global warming and evolution. The conversation emphasizes the need for a cultural shift towards valuing scientific education and literacy to ensure societal progress and address misconceptions. The importance of understanding the scientific method and basic scientific principles is deemed essential for the future of society.
PREREQUISITESEducators, policymakers, science communicators, and anyone interested in improving public understanding of science and its relevance to societal issues.
Pythagorean said: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.
Chi Meson said: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.
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.rootX said: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.
Chi Meson said: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.