The general public is scientifically illiterate

[alt]

One difference I see in this argument is this: a science PhD would not pretend to automatically know the intricacies of finance, nor would they pretend to be an expert in music theory, etc, etc, etc.

But too many people mistake their general feelings and mistaken intuition for valid scientific arguments. Too many senators, for certain.

I don't know much about your (US) senators, but I agree with your rest.

I was merely making the point that I didn't think there was an imperative for the general public to be scientifically literate to any great extent.

 

[rhody]

Are you sure about this?

I have to hand it to you vanadium, you never ever miss a beat, I stand corrected on both counts, it seems that "string theory" is in the same category, at least for now. http://www.stevens.edu/csw/cgi-bin/blogs/horganism/?p=14"

As soon as my radio announced this morning that John Mather and George Smoot won the 2006 Nobel Prize in Physics, my first thought was, Will the Nobel press release say anything positive about inflation, one of the quasi-scientific “theories” that has undermined the credibility of modern cosmology?

The invention of inflation (the term discovery is not appropriate here) is generally credited to Alan Guth of MIT. In the early 1980s, he proposed that during the big bang gravity briefly became a repulsive rather than attractive force. As a result, the universe underwent a tremendous, exponential growth spurt before settling down to its current, much more leisurely rate of expansion.

Unfortunately, inflation is based on untested–and probably untestable–unified theories of particle physics. Moreover, like string theory, inflation is so flexible that it can account for virtually any observations. That is why in 1994 I bet Michael Riordan, a Stanford physicist and author, a case of wine that Alan Guth would not win a Nobel Prize for inflation by the year 2000.

as for Lee Smolin, I have no explanation... none...

Off topic comment:
I really enjoyed his book, "Trouble with Physics", however, he discussed ideas that I never would have the imagination to bring up. From a layman's perspective, I like his straight forward honest style. It would be nice to see him win a Nobel one day for a verifiable testable theory.

2009, The Nobel Prize in Physics
Charles K. Kao, Willard S. Boyle, George E. Smith
2008, The Nobel Prize in Physics
Yoichiro Nambu, Makoto Kobayashi, Toshihide Maskawa
2007, The Nobel Prize in Physics
Albert Fert, Peter Grünberg
2006, The Nobel Prize in Physics
John C. Mather, George F. Smoot
2005, The Nobel Prize in Physics
Roy J. Glauber, John L. Hall, Theodor W. Hänsch
2004, The Nobel Prize in Physics
David J. Gross, H. David Politzer, Frank Wilczek
2003, The Nobel Prize in Physics
Alexei A. Abrikosov, Vitaly L. Ginzburg, Anthony J. Leggett
2002, The Nobel Prize in Physics
Raymond Davis Jr., Masatoshi Koshiba, Riccardo Giacconi
2001, The Nobel Prize in Physics
Eric A. Cornell, Wolfgang Ketterle, Carl E. Wieman
2000, The Nobel Prize in Physics
Zhores I. Alferov, Herbert Kroemer, Jack S. Kilby

Rhody...sheepish... crawls slooowly under a rock...

 

[Gokul43201]

I tend to ignore those opinions, but I think what Hawking said was totally illogical.
If he could actually prove the existence of everything, then he can claim that god does not exists.

Hawking has made no such claim, to my knowledge. I call your bluff. Can you provide a citation and quote to back your statement?

 

[nismaratwork]

Probably



Probably not



Yes .. So ?

Soooo... If A can remain A, but incorporate B as well, but B cannot move from B to incorporate A, then yeah, aggrandize away (in reference to the post where you raised this issue). You were implying, I think, that everyone has their specialty, so why is science somehow the more than banking or the like? My answer, is that one can encompass the other, but the other lacks that capacity, making it less. In short, I was implying something to invalidate your previous implication.

People have undestood the world around them, as suits their needs, for thousands of years.

That's not accurate; people have formed theories for years, but that doesn't mean they understood anything. I wouldn't say that pre-germ beliefs were to the benefit of anyone or suited anyone's needs. Science adds the element of conditional understanding of a theory, without a claim to understanding underlying reality. In my view, that's a big step up, and the benefits of science (such as medicine) agree.

Yes. Even more reason why the general public is scientifically illiterate - and why you can't blame them for that.

I don't blame them; hell, my comment before yours was to point out that far from scientific illiteracy, actual functional illiteracy is a problem! I don't seek or expect a world of scientists, but a little less stupidity and reactionary crap would be a fine change of pace. As for blame, there is no one, and nothing to blame... it just is.

Also, I must say I found the OP's comment ..

The rest of the comments there are absolutely atrocious. People giving their ideas of big bang, etc. It is truly hilarious, and at the same time will make you feel depressed.

.. a little off-putting - perhaps even elitist.

There is no dearth of differing vieiws here for instance, within these hallowed halls of science, about the bb.

Finally, I wonder WHY scientists would think they have an imperative to make the general public MORE scientifically literate than what they are presently. What would be the benefit to both parties (scientists and the general public) in that ?


spelling edit

Scientists are often at the mercy of public funding, so for one little example, if people believe that embryonic stem cell research = murdering babies, it's a problem. On a less controversial note, what if protests against the LHC had been more than a fringe event? There was a degree of basic scientific knowledge required for people not to think we'd be opening a gate to hell, or making stellar-mass black holes. A scientifically literate population would be more likely to see benefits, as a whole, for many programs which get the short end of the funding stick. That's just one of many possible examples.

 

[OmCheeto]

Last weekend, my cousin asked me what my favorite hobby was. I said; studying science.

She then asked; "Which one?"

I couldn't answer the question. The question didn't even make sense to me. I wanted to say all of them, but decided that might sound pretentious. So I changed the subject.

I'll have to go back and hit the books to figure out if I can answer that question for her in the future.

I wouldn't want her to think I'm just "general public".

 

[Blenton]

How do we know hawking isn't a puppet of sorts? Someone could just be rigging his voice machine to say whatever they want and he'd just sit there.

 

[waht]

How do we know hawking isn't a puppet of sorts? Someone could just be rigging his voice machine to say whatever they want and he'd just sit there.

Because his writing is backed up by research in cosmology, and astrophysics which was done by many thousands of scientists over the last century. In fact, to most scientists there is nothing new in the new Hawking's book.

 

[jwxie]

In his new book, "The Grand Design," scheduled for a September release, Hawking argues that the universe didn't need divine inspiration to come into being.

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," writes Hawking. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists why we exist.

"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going," he writes, according to excerpts

That's what he wrote in the book, according the BBC News.
We can interpret it differently. But the bottom line is that God is not an acceptable answer to the origin of universe, which of course, the medium say "God does not exist".

What I have to say from this quote:

Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing

What creates gravity? How is the first ultimate-extrema elementary particle (the very first one) created?

Just based on this quote, I find a serious question mark. Then again, we return to science vs religion 101.

 

[nismaratwork]

That's what he wrote in the book, according the BBC News.
We can interpret it differently. But the bottom line is that God is not an acceptable answer to the origin of universe, which of course, the medium say "God does not exist".

What I have to say from this quote:

What creates gravity? How is the first ultimate-extrema elementary particle (the very first one) created?

Just based on this quote, I find a serious question mark. Then again, we return to science vs religion 101.

All valid, but it's not the same as the line you attributed to him.

 

[Gokul43201]

I tend to ignore those opinions, but I think what Hawking said was totally illogical.
If he could actually prove the existence of everything, then he can claim that god does not exists.

Hawking has made no such claim, to my knowledge. I call your bluff. Can you provide a citation and quote to back your statement?

"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going," he writes, according to excerpts

That's what he wrote in the book, according the BBC News.

Saying "It is not necessary to invoke God..." is clearly not a "claim that god does not exist".

Please be careful when you attribute statements to other people.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Hats off to rhody for his last post.

 

[diazona]

Off topic comment:
I really enjoyed his book, "Trouble with Physics", however, he discussed ideas that I never would have the imagination to bring up. From a layman's perspective, I like his straight forward honest style. It would be nice to see him win a Nobel one day for a verifiable testable theory.

I believe Smolin works in quantum gravity (at least he has done work relevant to QG, I'm not sure if that's his major research area)... which currently appears to be even less testable than string theory So it might be a while.

 

[alt]

Soooo... If A can remain A, but incorporate B as well, but B cannot move from B to incorporate A, then yeah, aggrandize away (in reference to the post where you raised this issue). You were implying, I think, that everyone has their specialty, so why is science somehow the more than banking or the like? My answer, is that one can encompass the other, but the other lacks that capacity, making it less. In short, I was implying something to invalidate your previous implication.

I don't disagree. Earlier, I was making, or perhaps trying to make (not that well, it now seems) the simple statement that I didn't see the need for the public to be more scientifically literate.

That's not accurate; people have formed theories for years, but that doesn't mean they understood anything. I wouldn't say that pre-germ beliefs were to the benefit of anyone or suited anyone's needs. Science adds the element of conditional understanding of a theory, without a claim to understanding underlying reality. In my view, that's a big step up, and the benefits of science (such as medicine) agree.

People haven't understood anything in previous years / ages ? If that's what you're saying, I don't agree. And think about what people a couple of hundred years hence might be saying about our current understandings.

I don't blame them; hell, my comment before yours was to point out that far from scientific illiteracy, actual functional illiteracy is a problem! I don't seek or expect a world of scientists, but a little less stupidity and reactionary crap would be a fine change of pace. As for blame, there is no one, and nothing to blame... it just is.

Yes, I see your point. There is stupidity and reactionary crap in other areas too - not just science.

 

[nismaratwork]

<snip>People haven't understood anything in previous years / ages ? If that's what you're saying, I don't agree. And think about what people a couple of hundred years hence might be saying about our current understandings.
<snip>

They may say that our understanding was horribly incomplete, but unlike previous generations we've used our theories to make and do things in accordance with those theories. Spaceflight, LASERs, photovoltaic cells, CCDs, MOSFETs, and more, all depend on theories we believe today. In the past, many theories didn't yield matching results, such as a belief in humours of the body, the role of spirits in drownings in lakes and ponds (the Japanese Kappa), and so much more. Hopefully future generations can look back at us like cavemen; people with some relatively simple tools that have been eclipsed, but not with a lack of understanding of how and why those tools work.

As for theories, they're all incomplete or "wrong", so revision and change is natural and to be expected. We don't believe today that we have a firm grasp on the fundamentals of nature, just approximations and fantastically predictive theories; that is a BIG change for human scientific endeavor.

 

[SixNein]

Do you believe that the average physicist can learn how to be a CPA? Do you believe the average CPA can become a physicist? I think this a bit "quaternion"-ish... it doesn't yield the same result in both directions. Science is the means by which we understand the world around us, whereas say, finance, is a necessity which is purely invented for the sake of smooth commerce.

It really comes down to those questions: A can -> B, but B cannot -> A. How many scientists enjoy classical music...? Many, especially those with an appreciation of mathematics. How many composers can or do appreciate the science of their own instruments? Some, but not many.

Not to be a stick in the mud, but some need to re-check their ego-meter. I think the average farmer could become an average physicist. The only limit to success in physics is how hard one is willing to work. The same is true for mathematics.

 

[nismaratwork]

Not to be a stick in the mud, but some need to re-check their ego-meter. I think the average farmer could become an average physicist. The only limited to success in physics is how hard one is willing to work. The same is true for mathematics.

Not to be reality in the fantasy, but if by "average farmer" you mean someone of average intelligence (which I don't think I'd say is true), then no, I disagree. If you believe that anyone can become fluent in physics and mathematics, you must believe that size and strength have no effect on a person's ability to lift weight. You've made an utterly absurd statement, and at the same time insulted the intelligence and/or educational level of farmers.

If you really believe that success in physics and mathematics is directly in proportion to effort, why isn't every physicist another Einstein or Dirac? Are they just not trying quite as hard? You've made a laughable statement, not to mention that there are plenty of extremely bright people who can try all they want and fail to grasp many concepts in various sciences and maths, but excel in other areas. I almost thought you were joking when I first read your post, but not I think it's just an expression of a simplistic idea. Hell, you're not even being egalitarian, just ignorant. I'm sure that the engineers, physicists and mathematicians here will be thrilled to hear that the only barrier to their unlimited success is how hard they work.

 

[SixNein]

I'm sure that the engineers, physicists and mathematicians here will be thrilled to hear that the only barrier to their unlimited success is how hard they work.

And hard work is the barrier.

 

[SixNein]

If you really believe that success in physics and mathematics is directly in proportion to effort, why isn't every physicist another Einstein or Dirac?

There are many accomplished physicists and mathematicians alive today. You seem to attribute fame to success. Getting famous in these fields is much like getting struck by lightning.

Let me provide an example. You have probably heard of Grigori Perelman who recently rose to fame because he solved the Poincare conjecture. But you may not have heard of Richard Hamilton who also contributed greatly to the solution of the problem. The news media latched onto Perelman, and he is propelled into the spotlight of super-genius without any mention of the work done by Hamilton. So is Hamilton unsuccessful? I think he is quite an accomplished mathematician. The most interesting thing about this story is how people think of Perelman. Perelman chose not to screw over Hamilton and people call him crazy for it. I think he is a model for all mathematicians to follow.

 

[nismaratwork]

There are many accomplished physicists and mathematicians alive today. You seem to attribute fame to success. Getting famous in these fields is much like getting struck by lightning.

Let me provide an example. You have probably heard of Grigori Perelman who recently rose to fame because he solved the Poincare conjecture. But you may not have heard of Richard Hamilton who also contributed greatly to the solution of the problem. The news media latched onto Perelman, and he is propelled into the spotlight of super-genius without any mention of the work done by Hamilton. So is Hamilton unsuccessful? I think he is quite an accomplished mathematician. The most interesting thing about this story is how people think of Perelman. Perelman chose not to screw over Hamilton and people call him crazy for it. I think he is a model for all mathematicians to follow.

Wow, you're making ridiculous assumptions about what I know, and you're wrong on all counts. You're also changing the topic to fame for reasons that escape me. I used the names I did for the sake of illustrating a point, and you retorting with other brilliant minds in no way supports the notion that ANYONE can achieve similar results with "hard work". SixNein, stay on topic and stop playing rhetorical games. You made a ridiculous statement, now back it up or step down. You said that "the average farmers" and the Hamiltons of the world are on equal footing, lacking only the amount of work they put into a given field. You're ignoring intelligence, which is insane in my view, so please... having made this absurd statement provide something to back it up other than a happy diversion and assumptions about my knowledge of history.

 

[alt]

They may say that our understanding was horribly incomplete, but unlike previous generations we've used our theories to make and do things in accordance with those theories. Spaceflight, LASERs, photovoltaic cells, CCDs, MOSFETs, and more, all depend on theories we believe today. In the past, many theories didn't yield matching results, such as a belief in humours of the body, the role of spirits in drownings in lakes and ponds (the Japanese Kappa), and so much more. Hopefully future generations can look back at us like cavemen; people with some relatively simple tools that have been eclipsed, but not with a lack of understanding of how and why those tools work.

As for theories, they're all incomplete or "wrong", so revision and change is natural and to be expected. We don't believe today that we have a firm grasp on the fundamentals of nature, just approximations and fantastically predictive theories; that is a BIG change for human scientific endeavor.

Hi Nismaratwork. Thanks for the interesting and informative reply - I'm thinking a lot about it all.

spelling edit

 

[nismaratwork]

Hi Nismaratwork. Thanks for the interesting and informative reply - I'm thinking a lot about it all.

spelling edit

Thanks, you brought up some interesting objections I had to carefully consider. I look forward to your conclusions.

 

[SixNein]

Wow, you're making ridiculous assumptions about what I know, and you're wrong on all counts. You're also changing the topic to fame for reasons that escape me. I used the names I did for the sake of illustrating a point, and you retorting with other brilliant minds in no way supports the notion that ANYONE can achieve similar results with "hard work". SixNein, stay on topic and stop playing rhetorical games. You made a ridiculous statement, now back it up or step down. You said that "the average farmers" and the Hamiltons of the world are on equal footing, lacking only the amount of work they put into a given field. You're ignoring intelligence, which is insane in my view, so please... having made this absurd statement provide something to back it up other than a happy diversion and assumptions about my knowledge of history.

The English word 'may' is not an absolute.

If you would like an example of success through hard work, the mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan is the perfect example. He worked on mathematics almost every waking moment of his life. He even dropped out of college because he wouldn't take the time away from mathematics to study something else. He would work on mathematics all day long, and he would dream about it at night. Because of his hard work and dedication, he became one of the best mathematicians if not the best in recent history. Now compare the time and work he spent to that of an average mathematician.

 

[nismaratwork]

The English word 'may' is not an absolute.

If you would like an example of success through hard work, the mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan is the perfect example. He worked on mathematics almost every waking moment of his life. He even dropped out of college because he wouldn't take the time away from mathematics to study something else. He would work on mathematics all day long, and he would dream about it at night. Because of his hard work and dedication, he became one of the best mathematicians if not the best in recent history. Now compare the time and work he spent to that of an average mathematician.

OK, maybe we're talking across purposes here... I'm not saying that you don't need hard work to achieve in science and math, I'm saying that alone is not enough. You've moved from a farmer to great minds in math and science... and that's not the same discussion. I don't disagree with your current argument, but it's not the same one as we were originally having.

 

[SixNein]

OK, maybe we're talking across purposes here... I'm not saying that you don't need hard work to achieve in science and math, I'm saying that alone is not enough.

If a person had some kind of mental retardation, I would agree; however, I would disagree with a normal person. Intelligence is a very subjective thing. If you measured a person's IQ before and after training of mathematics or physics, I would place a wager that it would be noticeably higher after completion of the training provided that the person worked hard. The mind would build itself up just like a muscle.

I think anyone could become anything with the proper motivation and the guts to tear down mental barriers that they may have put up in the past.

 

[nismaratwork]

If a person had some kind of mental retardation, I would agree; however, I would disagree with a normal person. Intelligence is a very subjective thing. If you measured a person's IQ before and after training of mathematics or physics, I would place a wager that it would be noticeably higher after completion of the training provided that the person worked hard. The mind would build itself up just like a muscle.

I think anyone could become anything with the proper motivation and the guts to tear down mental barriers that they may have put up in the past.

OK, well we fundamentally disagree on that point, and if this were another area of PF I'd ask for sources, but in the context of general discussion, I think maybe it's best if we agree to disagree.

 

[Andy]

hmmm, as a member of the general public i am deeply offended by this thread. But due to being a member of the great general public i don't know why.

 

[nismaratwork]

hmmm, as a member of the general public i am deeply offended by this thread. But due to being a member of the great general public i don't know why.

It's result of the entire thread being a coded message specifically insulting the size of the readers penis.

Kidding aside, being illiterate in the literal sense is really nothing to be offended by, or about, it's a cause to action to learn to read. I think scientific illiteracy is the same thing, and not a cause for offense, just a cause for action to be taken. You don't point at someone who is functionally illiterate and laugh, you help them learn to read... kind of the whole point of sites such as this.

Unless your post was just meant as a joke, in which case it's the penis thing.

 

[Andy]

Does the world really need more professor frinks? i think not.

 

[nismaratwork]

Does the world really need more professor frinks? i think not.

We already have plenty of Barneys and Burns... so yeah, I'd say so.

 

[Andy]

Not enough homers though...