The discussion centers around the perceived level of scientific and engineering understanding among the general public. Participants explore various aspects of public knowledge, misconceptions about science, and the cultural attitudes towards science and mathematics. The scope includes conceptual reflections on education, media influence, and societal values regarding STEM fields.
Participants generally agree that there is a significant gap in the public's understanding of science and engineering. However, there are multiple competing views regarding the causes of this ignorance, including educational shortcomings, media influence, and cultural attitudes, leaving the discussion unresolved.
Limitations include a lack of consensus on the specific factors contributing to public ignorance and the varying definitions of what constitutes a basic understanding of science and engineering.
Jimmy Snyder said: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.
NewtonianAlch said: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.
After the first two games of the American League Championship Series the magazine's Talk of the Town columnist speculates on whether Murphy's Law (basically stated as anything that can go wrong will) will apply to the Boston Red Sox in their playoff against the New York Yankees. The author cites a British study that concluded that the Murphy's Law corollary, "that bad things happen at the most inopportune times" is statistically significant. McGrath introduces a mathematical formula: "Let U, C, I, S and F be integers between 1 and 9, reflecting, respectively, comparative levels of Urgency, Complexity, Importance, Skill, and Frequency in a given set of circumstances. Let A, which stands for Aggravation, equal 7.0. (Don't ask.)... Let's give the Sox an 8 for Skill, and 9 for both Urgency and Importance. Complexity... a 5... Frequency ...9. So now we've got: [((9 + 5 + 9) x (10 - 8)) / 20] x 0.7 x 1 / (1 - sin (9 / 10)). The final Murphy's score, in other words, is 7.4." The author concludes, "No wonder Johnny Damon, the Red Sox' ordinarily dependable lead-off batter, lost his swing just as Curt Schilling, the team's most durable pitcher, went down with a bum ankle."
British journalists also tend to see themselves as tradesmen rather than professionals. They learn on the job. They're more interested in storytelling and entertainment than they are in balance and standards. As a result, some of them don't give a crap.
I am well aware that I was using anecdotal evidence and it may not pan out cross region and cross culture and may even be flat out wrong. But... I don't see this trend other people apparently have observed that some significant portion of the population allegedly doesn't care about, or have any interest in, science. I am quite certain that you likely never had any intention of practicing your martial arts on some poor ignorant female but it strikes me as a very common attitude among more intelligent people to look down on, and speak disdainfully of, the ignorant. And it seems rather counter productive if the typical possessor of knowledge is disdainful of the typical person who lacks said knowledge. Unless of course you actually like to look down on people and consider yourself superior, which is rather probable in many cases I would guess.NewtonianAlch said:What you're alluding to is very general; I am not claiming people need to know specifics of fields. As for the situation with your teachers in school is largely irrelevant as it's not necessarily the case in every school, or even a large amount of schools.
My point however convoluted it may have come across was that, there are some very basic ideas or points that people seem to lack. I don't take delight in treating people as half-wits nor do I try to act "knowledgeable". Please don't make it seem like we must all hold hands and try to "understand" ignorance.
There are plenty of things we are not experts or considered knowledgeable in but have a basic grasp of. What I was describing were situations that is extremely commonplace and is far beyond a level of even having a basic grasp of.
To think that science is fake, or to not know what "engineering" is largely idiotic.
Ryan_m_b said:Let's not bicker people, this is a serious subject that needs careful consideration and discussion.
This thread has been pruned.chiro said:The responses in this thread have been really good IMO.
I have (not going to say what because I'd rather not give to much info away). It was interesting, I found that the majority of people were very interested in what I had to say. They had many questions and enjoyed the discourse. However something that was hard was trying to get to people who weren't looking to have a discussion about science, I kept thinking that the good response from most people was because they were the type of people who would look for communication.ZapperZ said:So, just out of curiosity, how many of you here have been involved in trying to communicate science to the public? Your participation here on PF does not count.
If you have, did you learn anything from your effort? Did you think your efforts were productive? What lessons can you convey to the group here?
If you haven't, why not?
Zz.
Ryan_m_b said:This thread has been pruned.
Overall I agree with what you're saying. Entertainment containing bad science and entertaining pseudo-science is better to watch than dry science shows but a lot of science shows do include entertainment. Either through engaging presenters (Brian Cox, Attenborough), good camera work (wildlife documentaries) or interesting CGI (journey through the solar system) etc. If anything science media as an independent field needs to develop.
Ryan_m_b said:I have (not going to say what because I'd rather not give to much info away). It was interesting, I found that the majority of people were very interested in what I had to say. They had many questions and enjoyed the discourse. However something that was hard was trying to get to people who weren't looking to have a discussion about science, I kept thinking that the good response from most people was because they were the type of people who would look for communication.
Something else that was interesting was that most people were not surprised to learn that a lot of things were pseudo-science and bunk. For the most part it seems that people are fully aware that many things are rubbish and trust what they hear tentatively.
chiro said:The high school experience no doubt leaves a kind of bad taste in the mouths of many students and I wouldn't be surprised if this was a big contributing factor among others.
With teacher layoffs and staff shortages nationwide, some teachers are being asked to teach subjects they are not certified to teach.
Roughly 30 percent of chemistry and physics teachers in public high schools did not major in these fields and haven't earned a certificate to teach those subjects, according to a new survey released Monday by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Half of Earth science teachers are similarly unqualified.
"In our mind, a certificate doesn't necessarily mean somebody has content knowledge," he says. Although subject certification varies state to state, Luce says that taking one chemistry class in college might qualify a teacher to teach the subject. "If you don't have content knowledge then it's very difficult to not only teach the class, but it's virtually impossible to inspire somebody."
According to the NCES study, which surveyed high school teachers during the 2007-2008 school year, fewer than half of chemistry and physics teachers majored in those subjects, and a quarter of math teachers don't hold math degrees.
Luce says the problem is most prevalent in middle school, where more than two thirds of math teachers aren't qualified to teach the subject, a 2007 report by the National Academies shows. Only 1 in 10 middle school physical science teachers have a degree or certification in the subject, according to the same report. "That's when you lose a kid's interest," he says. "They don't even want to try in high school because they think, 'I didn't like this in middle school.'"
Middle school/juinior high school can go to grade 9 (freshman year of high school). Also, the study was mostly concerning High School teachers.NewtonianAlch said:Well I suppose it entirely depends on what level of science they are teaching. Is it really necessary that a middle-school teacher have a degree in physics to teach basic physics? Also, this would mean a lot of science degree specific individuals taking up the teaching profession, how likely is that?
NewtonianAlch said:Well I suppose it entirely depends on what level of science they are teaching. Is it really necessary that a middle-school teacher have a degree in physics to teach basic physics? Also, this would mean a lot of science degree specific individuals taking up the teaching profession, how likely is that?
NewtonianAlch said: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.
Nice post, but Evo has pin pointed the big obstacle to this goal, which is our sorry educational system at the pre-college level. Current problem: teachers are being made to teach subjects they aren't certified to teach. This sounds like some remedial measure a country might adopt in the wake of a disaster or something, not something that should be happening in an otherwise well functioning society.nucl34rgg said:I think we need the public to get excited about science. We need the basic ideas of physics, biology, and chemistry to be "common knowledge" in the general public. We need people to also be aware of basic mathematics, computer science and economics. Being a modern human isn't just about having advanced technology. We need an informed society capable of understanding where we stand, what we are trying to achieve, and how we might go about achieving it because it is that very society that will ultimately foot the bill and decide whether we progress or regress.
zoobyshoe said:Nice post, but Evo has pin pointed the big obstacle to this goal, which is our sorry educational system at the pre-college level. Current problem: teachers are being made to teach subjects they aren't certified to teach. This sounds like some remedial measure a country might adopt in the wake of a disaster or something, not something that should be happening in an otherwise well functioning society.
I don't know, haven't looked into it in depth, but I suspect the government doesn't perceive it to be in their budgetary interest to promote the kind of society you propose, to make sure every Starbucks Barista and yoga teacher and welder and drywall hanger understands how their laptop works, how the periodic table is organized, what the Sunday morning TV economist means by this or that term . Somehow it always happens that enough bright people emerge from the other end of the educational system to perform the services needed by the government and society, to keep the military and infrastructure running, and to make progress. As long as the grade schools and high schools are creaking along somehow, the government is probably satisfied.
I assume that was a mistake?nucl34rgg said:We have people who legitimately believe that evolution is a lie.
I didn't mean the content of their belief was itself legitimate. I meant their belief was authentic and honest.Evo said:I assume that was a mistake?
Really? I missed that thread. Or is that in this thread?nucl34rgg said:..., and we have presidents that think all atoms are muonic.
nucl34rgg said:Here is the video if you think I am BSing you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=p2dT7xVS6-s#t=3362s
His goal, which was to advocate more funding for basic research, was admirable, but what he says betrays a disturbing lack of understanding. "Elemental physics," "The muons in all of our atoms..." ... really?
Muonic atoms
The muon was the first elementary particle discovered that does not appear in ordinary atoms. Negative muons can, however, form muonic atoms (also called mu-mesic atoms), by replacing an electron in ordinary atoms. Muonic hydrogen atoms are much smaller than typical hydrogen atoms because the much larger mass of the muon gives it a much smaller ground-state wavefunction than is observed for the electron.
If I could remember the names of all these particles, I'd be a botanist.
OmCheeto said:Really? I missed that thread. Or is that in this thread?
Ah ha!
I think you misrepresented what he was trying to say.
I think he was trying to explain, what do they call it, parity breaking?
He's a lawyer by training, and the words that came out his mouth were merely his interpretation of what some particle physicist told him one day. As far as I can tell, he got just about every detail wrong, but I have a feeling he understood the concept, and knew the research was important enough to fund, and present to the public.
And if you look at the Muon entry in Wiki, it looks as though he may have even read the article:
What was it Fermi once said?
for my future google searching reference: President Clinton thinks that all atoms are muonic.