How much do you know about science?

[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.

 

[Polymath257]

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

Hey, it beats watching reality TV!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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

Long reply. We were just discussing that chart itself. We don't even have the study(ies) to actually discuss.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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

Long reply. We were just discussing that chart itself. We don't even have the study(ies) to actually discuss.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I am vehemently triggered by the inclusion of Astrology.

Simple questions but what has astrology got to do with science?

I'm pretty sure it was there to gauge whether people knew the difference between Astrology and Astronomy. If they would have asked about an academic or scientific study of the stars, I would bet more people would (correctly) choose "Astronomy". Asking the inverse is to test people's ability to discern academic from non or scientific from non, forcing them to make the distinction - in other words, a point is of more worth if the person is able to make the distinction, versus just choosing what they know as the name for academic/scientific study of the stars.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I am with the scientists but on the cautious side.

 

[viole]

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.

12/12. But I admit I used exclusion when it came to that vaccine question.

Ciao

- viole

 

[ChristineM]

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

Absolutely

 

[ChristineM]

I'm pretty sure it was there to gauge whether people knew the difference between Astrology and Astronomy. If they would have asked about an academic or scientific study of the stars, I would bet more people would (correctly) choose "Astronomy". Asking the inverse is to test people's ability to discern academic from non or scientific from non, forcing them to make the distinction - in other words, a point is of more worth if the person is able to make the distinction, versus just choosing what they know as the name for academic/scientific study of the stars.

I think you are correct. I don't like the implication in the questionnaire is all.

 

[YmirGF]

11 out of 12.

Got the waves one wrong, on an island, surrounded by water. *sigh*
I thought, moon, but went with rotation.

*hangs head in shame*

 

[ChristineM]

11 out of 12.

Got the waves one wrong, on an island, surrounded by water. *sigh*
I thought, moon, but went with rotation.

*hangs head in shame*

I got 12 but it was close, astrology/astronomy... I'm dyslexic so it was a double take when i finally recognised the word i was going to select.

Hence my reason for griping about it.

 

[viole]

Lol 9 but in fairness I am quite hungover. Also I will now and forever get the terms Astrology and Astronomy mixed up. Don't ask me why, just always have, no matter how often it's explained to me.

My personal reccomandation is use an equally sounding, and closely plausibile, association.

Like astrology/theology. Or astrology/scientology.

Ciao

- viole

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

just occurred to me, on finally casting my score into the survey ring above, that we might well have a source of bias in this survey, as it is 1) voluntary, and 2) those who score poorly might not be willing to report their scores to RF, whereas 3) those who score well might be more willing to flaunt it, as it were...

 

[Jumi]

Same here. I was thinking that to magnify, the lens had to cause the light to diverge. But I should have realized that a convex lens can't do that.

I had the same thought. On seeing the answer I felt like it was a lazy way to lose one point.

 

[Underhill]

I missed the boiling point of water. In hindsight pretty dumb, but I didn't spend time thinking about it.

 

[james bond]

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.

I wasn't saying hurting was "your" intent, but we cannot see intent. More likely, it was what you felt like doing thinking the lion would be behind bars. The point I was trying to make was teachers see some of these answers and I suppose they form some kind of opinion of what is going on in the homes of these kids. This answer may be nothing, but things begin to add up. I don't know if you've ever had a talk with a teacher about your own child.

 

[Jumi]

Same here. I was thinking that to magnify, the lens had to cause the light to diverge. But I should have realized that a convex lens can't do that.

I had the same thought. On seeing the answer I felt like it was a lazy way to lose one point.

 

[Revoltingest]

I wasn't saying hurting was "your" intent, but we cannot see intent. More likely, it was what you felt like doing thinking the lion would be behind bars. The point I was trying to make was teachers see some of these answers and I suppose they form some kind of opinion of what is going on in the homes of these kids. This answer may be nothing, but things begin to add up. I don't know if you've ever had a talk with a teacher about your own child.

I'm sure my teachers all suspected something odd going on.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

12/12. But I admit I used exclusion when it came to that vaccine question.

Ciao

- viole

Successful test takers utilize all tools to maximize their results. Doing well on tests is a skill and talent in and of itself. I've scored in the top few percentile of every standardized test I've ever taken and the only thing I ever read is the rantings of insane people on internet forums.

 

[Quintessence]

Not really what I was expecting from a survey assessing science knowledge. I suppose they wanted to keep it simple, but still. To not break it down a discipline characterized by specialists into subject area or discipline? To have trivia-based questions? Just weird. The only question I liked was the one about data.

 

[Ponder This]

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).

All of the issues presented are common news items. There isn't anything being held back in the press concerning these issues.

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.

Many scientists are guilty of not verifying their information. Feynman wrote about it in his autobiography. He based some results on experiments done by other scientists without verifying the stuff himself and suffered the consequences. The process of accepting science results is not a matter of opinion polls. You think the common man is unaware of science results about GMOs? Pesticides? Vaccines? Education ain't the issue.

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.

That's right: science has a process. The opinion poll in the OP does not qualify. I refuse to accept that poll as science and no true scientist would. It's political sophistry.

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

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

Those particular special interests would not use the poll in the OP to make their case. So you are wrong as it relates to what is happening here. Sophistry isn't about what is right or wrong, it's about convincing people of things. In this case, the idea is that since scientists are more knowledgeable about these things than other people, you will look smarter if you agree with them.

If scientists wanted to show why they believe these things, they would be showing information about the experiments conducted, not opinion polls on what people think. It's just a reality that when a new experiment is conducted and a result determined, "scientists" will tend to jump on board but the general populace will always be more skeptical and slower to accept those results as true facts. The common person isn't using the lens of science; the common person is using the lens of common sense - which some scientists simply lack.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

12/12. I was also insulted by question 12 (astrology); not science.

I also did not care for the simplistic model about cavities and sugar-- insufficient information to draw a conclusion! What about diet? How many meals in a day? What sort of foods, besides sugar-containing foods? How was the sugar delivered? Sugary drinks? As a mostly fruit diet? (as you might see in the tropics, for example).

I answered what they *wanted*, because I know how this sh** rolls, with Pew (go by majority).

I had one more nit to pick, though: atomic energy? Also works with Thorium, Plutonium and other radioactive materials. And with tritium and deuterium too! (and possibly Helium 3). The very simplistic "question" 100% ignored isotope, too.

Kinda important, isotope: which isotope of Uranium you use? Kinda matters.

As in the difference between a nice functional power station and the Bikini Atoll...