How much do you know about science?

[Callisto]

Perfect score.

 

[james bond]

Already had taken it before. Perfect. It's not that difficult.

 

[james bond]

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.

There's no mention of the lion being behind bars, so the safe answer would be ball. If you wanted to kick the lion, then the teacher would probably make a little note about you. If you drew pictures of torturing animals, it would be noted, as well.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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.

That's a really interesting graphic, most of us are aware of the political bias in academia, but I had no idea they were that far out of whack!

 

[SomeRandom]

Maybe this will help: Astronomy almost certainly would have been called astrology instead (like geology, biology, anthropology, cardiology, etc.) if the word hadn't already been used for a different purpose. Astrology is the older one, so now you know which is which.

I'm pretty sure like 20 people have already told me that in life. Lol won't help

 

[Revoltingest]

There's no mention of the lion being behind bars, so the safe answer would be ball. If you wanted to kick the lion, then the teacher would probably make a little note about you. If you drew pictures of torturing animals, it would be noted, as well.

I din't want either the safe or the correct answer.
I wanted my answer!

And I'd have not hurt the lion.
Not keen on hurting things.

 

[leibowde84]

That's a really interesting graphic, most of us are aware of the political bias in academia, but I had no idea they were that far out of whack!

But, there was no bias in any of the questions. They were all 100% factual.

 

[sayak83]

That's a really interesting graphic, most of us are aware of the political bias in academia, but I had no idea they were that far out of whack!

Sorry it's the public who had been misled into believing untruths by self serving politicians. The positions of the scientific majority are based on evidence from science. The only question worth pondering here is what scientists should do to counteract the misinformation the public believe due to sophistry of politicians and special interests.

 

[Ponder This]

Sorry it's the public who had been misled into believing untruths by self serving politicians. The positions of the scientific majority are based on evidence from science. The only question worth pondering here is what scientists should do to counteract the misinformation the public believe due to sophistry of politicians and special interests.

Using something like a "majority of scientists agree" to convince the common person is political sophistry. Science isn't an opinion poll of what educated people think! The only question here is what special interest is trying to manipulate opinion this time.

 

[siti]

Using something like a "majority of scientists agree" to convince the common person is political sophistry. Science isn't an opinion poll of what educated people think!

But the data that was presented was an opinion poll of what scientists think compared to what the US public think. That there is such a divergence on matters that are scientific in nature is concerning. So either the public needs to be better educated in matters scientific or scientists need a convincing revelation of the divine and miraculous kind most urgently. I'm not pinning too much hope on the second option (or the first).

 

[sayak83]

Using something like a "majority of scientists agree" to convince the common person is political sophistry. Science isn't an opinion poll of what educated people think! The only question here is what special interest is trying to manipulate opinion this time.

Only the politicians who mislead the people. Scientists form their opinion by following the scientific results . it's the scientific results that have convinced the scientific majority one way or the other, and these results have to simply and clearly conveyed to the people so that they do not have incorrect beliefs.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Also that lower graph is ****ing horrifying. I knew it wasn't great, but is the American public really that stupid?

Amen. I'm more shocked that I did better than 94%.

 

[Liu]

10/12 Got optics wrong, and comet/asteroid - but I wasn't sure at all about my answer on either. I don't think we learned the latter in school. Also, had to use the procedure of exclusion on the polio question (I never had heard the name of that guy before).

The other questions were extremely easy.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Yes i know why it was included. Times have moved on 250+ years

Times and science might have moved on, but many of the religious right have not.

 

[Polymath257]

12/12, of course. It was a trivially easy quiz.

I'd love to see a *real* quiz about modern science. One that asks what it means to be an isotope. Or the difference between dark energy and dark matter. Or a question about mafic versus felsic rocks. Or what RuBisCo is. Or what happens in the citric acid cycle.

 

[Liu]

12/12, of course. It was a trivially easy quiz.

I'd love to see a *real* quiz about modern science. One that asks what it means to be an isotope. Or the difference between dark energy and dark matter. Or a question about mafic versus felsic rocks. Or what RuBisCo is. Or what happens in the citric acid cycle.

In that case I would get probably 2/5 or 3/5 (never heard of these rock types nor about a RuBisCo).

But there seems to be a strict difference in American culture between the natural sciences and the human sciences as this science quiz only included the first.
If the quiz were on, say, linguistics, it would be much easier for me, but I'd assume the results of the general population would rather be even worse.

 

[Polymath257]

In that case I would get probably 2/5 or 3/5 (never heard of these rock types nor about a RuBisCo).

Part of my point is that even working scientists tend not to know the basic ideas outside of their area of specialty. I once had a plant biologist express amazement that I had heard of RuBisCo (the enzyme that catalyzes the first step in carbon fixation in plants--one of the most common enzymes in the world). And I once gave my general care physician a short lecture on complement factors in relation to RA (although I got to prepare ahead of time for that one).

Felsic - Wikipedia

RuBisCO - Wikipedia

Complement system - Wikipedia

But there seems to be a strict difference in American culture between the natural sciences and the human sciences as this science quiz only included the first.
If the quiz were on, say, linguistics, it would be much easier for me, but I'd assume the results of the general population would rather be even worse.

Undoubtedly. In my upbringing, I somehow avoided the wine/whine merger (I didn't grow up in the south-east US). I had one girlfriend that was very amused at how I pronounce which.

Pronunciation of English ⟨wh⟩ - Wikipedia

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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.

This discussion is about the difference between causation and correlation. The graph, as you note, shows a positive correlation between sugar consumption and cavities.

Additional studies would need to be done to determine that sugar is a cause of cavities, specifically, controlled studies - studies where one group gets the sugar, the other doesn't, and the groups are otherwise as similar as can be including eating the same amount of other foods that might cause cavities. In that way, we make our best effort to isolate a single variable.

The study also needs to sufficiently powered, that is, contain enough subjects, to reveal differences between the two groups that might not be evident until thousands of people have been studied.

And it needs to be randomized - subjects selected at random to receive sugar or placebo. This is the best way to smooth out differences due to other factors. You mentioned genetics, and you could be correct that that is a factor here. But if the fraction of people more predisposed to getting cavities is say 7%, it is hoped that each group of cohorts will contain 7% with this proclivity, and not affect the results of the study if the genetic potential for cavities is the same in the two groups.

For completeness sake, the study should also be double blinded - neither the people administering the sugar and placebo, nor those checking for cavities before and after the study know who got what - and prospective (coming up).

I agree with you on this issue, but would quibble a little with your wording. We already know going into the study that eating more sugar may cause more cavities, which may have been the reason for collecting and plotting the data. The results of the study don't change that. It was true before and after the study that more sugar may cause more cavities. What the study establishes is the eating more sugar correlates with more cavities. If the data collection was done properly

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.

Once again, I think that you are correct in spirit, but I would change "positive causal relationship" (I'm assuming that you meant causal and not casual) to "positive correlation." The graph simply doesn't establish causality.

I saved prospective for last because there is a very famous example of failing to do a prospective study leading to a false conclusion. Restrospective studies of women's health records showed a positive correlation with postmenopausal estrogen usage and reduced heart disease. No experiment was performed, just old records reviewed.

Then, in the nineties, a prospective study called the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI), was done. It was set up like the one I described above - randomized, double blinded, controlled, etc., and exactly the opposite was discovered, especially in women that had been in menopause for 2+ years when they entered the study and began taking exogenous estrogens. These women had worse cardiovascular outcomes than those not getting estrogen.

How is this possible? For the reasons already alluded to - failure to control for other variables besides estrogen use. It turns out that
women taking supplemental estrogens were more frequently getting regular medical follow-up than those whose medical records began with a cardiac event, for example. If the women seeing physicians regularly had cardiovascular risk factors like diabetes, high blood pressure, a sedentary lifestyle, or smoking, they were more likely to have these problems addressed and resolved or mitigated.

The take-home message is that the initial retrospective study did indeed show a positive correlation between estrogen use and improved cardiovascular health, but did not establish a causal relationship - two different things as you noted. The estrogens were not cardioprotective as had been the common wisdom, but were actually another cardiac risk factor concealed by the greater benefit of regular medical care and risk reduction in other areas. Only a prospective study that reduced the number of variables to one - use of HRT or not being the only difference between the two study groups - could uncover that.

Not relevant to our discussion, but perhaps of interest is the fact that an increased risk of breast cancer was also identified by the study. Because of these two findings, recommendations on hormone replacement therapy (HRT) changed thereafter. Only symptomatic women would receive HRT, only at the lowest effective dose, and nonhormonal treatments for osteoporosis prevention became first line therapy.

 

[savagewind]

Good lord! Can some people not think of something better to do?
Pronunciation of English ⟨wh⟩ - Wikipedia

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Science isn't an opinion poll of what educated people think!

Actually, among other things, it is, although it is better worded that it includes a process of peer review wherein the community of relevant scientists debate, question one another, reproduce results, etc. until some kind of consensus is achieved.

What it's not is an opinion poll of what non-scientists want you to believe instead.

The only question here is what special interest is trying to manipulate opinion this time.

In the case of climate science, it's the petrochemical industry.

In the case of evolution, it's the creationists.