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 around the perception of science among the American public, exploring themes of scientific understanding, education, and cultural attitudes towards science. Participants express various viewpoints on the implications of survey results regarding public opinion on science and the factors contributing to perceived ignorance.
Participants express a range of competing views regarding the causes of public misunderstanding of science and the role of education versus the scientific community. No consensus is reached on these issues, and the discussion remains unresolved.
Limitations include the reliance on a single survey for understanding public attitudes towards science, as well as the absence of comparative data from other nations that could provide a broader context.
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.