-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How much do you know about science?
- Thread starter sayak83
- Start date
It only suggested a connection between sugar & cavities.
I think the quiz authors had a bias towards the sugar-cavity connection.
The question would lead them to that answer, but not everyone. We
skeptics who have seen fallacies erupt from the old correllation equals
causation mistake look askance at such things.
The other answers were obvious & unambiguous.
I'm reminded of a quiz I once took in elementary school.
The question....
"Which would you rather kick?"
Among the answers....
A ball
A lion
I knew they expected "A ball" to be the only correct answer.
But I wanted to kick the lion, provided it would be thru bars so I'd be safe.
Their "right" answer was actually wrong because of how they worded the question.
They made about my personal preference instead of what is commonly done.
Here's a question I remember grappling with in my school days: Would you weigh more, less, or the same at the equator compared with one of the poles?
You would weigh less at the equator. My intuition was that I would weigh more at the equator since there was more mass directly under my feet due to the equatorial bulge, but that really doesn't matter.
But it turns out that the factors that matter are that at the equator, you are further from the center of mass of the earth and subject to a centripital force (directed outward and opposing the gravitational force) not present at the poles. Each of these reduces your weigh a fraction of a percent, together by a half a percent according to this source
But it turns out that the factors that matter are that at the equator, you are further from the center of mass of the earth and subject to a centripital force (directed outward and opposing the gravitational force) not present at the poles. Each of these reduces your weigh a fraction of a percent, together by a half a percent according to this source
I would agree with the elementary school question but I do not see the corelation to the test. The first answer includes time and rate of increase not in the graph.
The 2nd answer includes the rate people brush there teeth not in the graph. The 4th answer includes years not in the graph. The question is best describes the data, only 3 references only the data in the chart.
The statement is stronger than mere correlation.
Sugar consumption could correlate with another factor which could be
the underlying cause, eg, refined flour (which also causes cavities).
This doesn't show that eating more sugar would cavities.
This would be something to suspect, but not believe as fact from the data shown.
I'd say the wording would've been better if it hadn't made the claim of eating
more sugar results in more cavities. This is a prediction based upon the graph.
Had it only addressed correlation, I'd have picked it.
We can discuss this in the context of the differences seen in science topics that survey polled. Your own views on those poll questions?
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
The quiz didn't give a hard "sugar will cause cavities." but rather the correct answer was correctly worded as stating a relation between the two variables.
No, it made a prediction, ie, eating more sugar will cause more cavities.
That cannot be shown from the graph because it doesn't eliminate other
variables, which are possibly causative. The correct answer wasn't
right...it wasn't even wrong.
I preferred the simple statement which appeared to be correct.
It was because if you chose the wrong answer it would mean you do not know what astronomy is.
Or you're dyslexic.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
It didn't say eating more sugar will cause more cavities. It said eating more sugar makes it more likely that you will. That's the proper and scientific way of accessing such causal relations between two variables. The chart itself doesn't even say that you will get more cavities if you eat more sugar if you know how to interpret it correctly. Clearly, the chart states that the more sugar you consume, the more likely you are to get cavities. It doesn't say you definitely will.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
It was obviously included to see who confused it with science.
Though in the past, even Newton thought it was a science in the same way as he practiced alchemy.
I was just bored consuming time before I saw Wonder Woman. Thanks for eating up my time, that was sweet.
Ponder This
Well-Known Member
Take this interesting quiz and find out how you rank in scientific knowledge.
Science Knowledge Quiz
Report your score in the poll.
On a more serious note, while scientists are trusted and respected, on many scientific topics, the views of the public and the scientists differ markedly.
Public and Scientists’ Views on Science and Society
Do you think
a) Such divergent views are concerning?
b) Do you think there is a need for both people to be better informed so that their views align with scientists on important topics of science? Or are people fully justified holding beliefs on scientific topic that are contrary to what scientists actually hold.
If that science quiz was supposed to be our benchmark...
then it seems clear that AAAS scientists maybe be smart, but they lack common sense.
This paints a very disturbing picture of the scientific community.
So
a) such divergent views are concerning
b) people are fully justified in holding beliefs on scientific topics that are contrary to what scientists hold
But let's break things down one by one:
Genetically Modified Foods:
It's a new technology, so scientists love it. The common person with any common sense knows that scientists love new technologies but don't always know all the consequences of them. So it doesn't even matter if science shows that they are safe. Anyone with common sense is going to wait this out and let someone else be the guinea pig.
Animals in Research:
Scientists are less concerned with moral values and more concerned with scientific advancement. The scientists wouldn't be using the animals to do the research if they hadn't already crossed this bridge and justified their actions. The common person hasn't crossed that bridge and therefore question the morality.
Foods Grown with Pesticides:
Pesticides by definition kill things. Science demonstrated an ignorance of the consequences of early pesticides. The common person remains skeptical of their safety. Does science really have their best interests at heart or are they just trying to make money? Common sense says: better safe than sorry.
Humans Have Evolved Over Time:
Scientists learn this as fact in school. But the common man also has religion. What are the consequences of believing that humans have evolved over time?...nothing? Common sense says: if it doesn't matter, then it doesn't matter.
Childhood Vaccines such as MMR Should be Required:
Scientists learn that vaccines are important in school. But vaccines have been harmful to people in the past. For example, the only people nowadays who have gotten polio are the people that got the polio vaccine. Maybe scientists have fixed the problems with their vaccines... but maybe not. The common man asks the question: Am I sick? No. Then what are they selling me? Do they really have my best interests in mind or are they just trying to make money?
Climate Change is mostly due to Human Activity:
This is poorly worded. Humans have only been affecting the environment in a measureable way for about 8800 years but our data on climate change goes back over 400 million years. It should be reworded to recent climate change during the past couple of centuries. But anyways...
There's plenty of evidence... now. But this has been a political football for several decades and there is a history of falsified data. How does the common man know that the scientists got it right this time? Not to mention this is the weather we are talking about. The weather man giving false predictions is a classic trope at this point. Every time a scientists "predicts" climate, the common man looks outside and asks himself, "Are things really that different?" And the answer is always, "No, they don't seem to be." So it doesn't matter to the common man.
Growing World Population Will Be a Major Problem:
Scientists have been saying that for... how long now? And has it been a problem yet? The common man looks around and says, "It doesn't appear to be affecting me."
Favor Building More Nuclear Plants:
Scientists read about how nuclear energy is safer and cleaner than ever!
The common man reads about the tsunami that destroyed a nuclear power plant in Japan.
Favor More Offshore Drilling:
That one is close to 50-50 among AAAS scientists... So I don't think there's an issue here. Common sense says better safe than sorry.
Astronauts Essential for Future of U.S. Space Program:
"essential" what does that mean? How does a scientist even answer that? Essential to what? The survival of the Space Program? The success of the Space Program? Essential if we want a man on Mars? What does this mean? Scientists are biased to want more people in space.
Favor Increased Use of Bioengineered Fuel:
Uh.... if it works, then do it? What's the issue here? Scientists are biased towards new technology.
Favor Increased Use of Fracking:
Even scientists don't favor it, but there is still a bias towards the use of new technologies among scientists.
Space Station Has Been a Good Investment for U.S.:
How is the common man supposed to answer that? This is for economists, not even a question for scientists really. The common man certainly hopes it was a good investment. No bad press. Maybe some positive press. Yeah, sure, seems like a good investment. Scientists have their bias towards things that smack of technology or science, but the Space Station isn't exactly new ground breaking technology.
Conclusion:
Common Sense and Science don't always go hand in hand and it's probably a good thing that the common man doesn't always go along with what scientists say. In fact, all these so-called scientists may need to do a reality check at the door to common sense.
That's essentially the same thing, & it's not a definite conclusion to reach from just the graph.
What if increased sugar consumption correlated with increased white flour, but only the latter
cause cavities? It would be possible that increasing sugar intake wouldn't increase cavities.
I am here to annoy & entertain.
The former is best, but I'll settle for the latter.
Thanx!
11 of 12, and if I'd spent a few more seconds thinking about optics it would have been 12. Oh well.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
No, it's not. Though they are both stating there is a relationship, one is saying eating more sugar will definitely cause more cavities, while one is stating that eating more sugar may cause more cavities. And such studies do not use concrete definitive language, because they are only comparing at two variables. We could also bring genetics into the likeliness of getting cavities, but it still doesn't mean you will but rather that you might get more cavities. And that is why the chart is not saying eating more sugar will cause more cavities, because there are of course other variables to consider, despite the positive casual relationship between increased amounts of sugar intake and increased rate of cavities.
I think we've exhausted the potential for interesting others.
I'm just going to get more boringly repetitive.
Btw, I knew the answer they wanted, but chose the other anyway.
I won't let The Man "man"ipulate me!
I dance to no one's tune!
I don't have strings controlling me!
Other trite cliches!