How much do you know about science?

[siti]

Just to make a point about the sugar and cavities thing - the question asked which statement was best and the correct answer was that the more sugar people eat the more likely they are to have cavities ... or something like that. The data clearly showed this to be true. This is not the same as saying that eating more sugar causes cavities and the question did not go anywhere near even suggesting that. That idea is entirely in the minds of those who have objected to the question. Any sensible scientifically-minded person would also want to know if there if there were any other factors that correlate to the number of cavities (or indeed to the consumption of sugar) before any hypothesis could be made about the cause(s) of dental decay. But there was nothing wrong with the question, the graph definitely showed a clear correlation between sugar consumption and cavities.

 

[siti]

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

I am not sure I am grokking here. Where did I say anything about anything being "held back in the press"? I was talking about education not media coverage. FYI they are not the same - mind you, given the sensationalized coverage of some of the issues perhaps the media is a force for de-educating the public. That might very well be part of the problem IMO. If the media were more intent on reporting the science rather than playing up 'the controversy' in the areas where public and scientific opinion diverge the most (i.e. climate change, evolution...etc) then the public would certainly be better informed...IMO.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

the common person is using the lens of common sense - which some scientists simply lack.

My experience has been that among 'common people' (not sure what your classification system here is, but I'm assuming you're meaning mostly nonscientists with a high school education and maybe some college, etc.) is that more than "some," also lack 'common sense.' (Don't really know what YOU mean by 'common sense,' either...) Actually, considerably more than "some."

 

[Confucian Mormon Buddhist]

I can't say as I really care what opinion "scientists" have on energy policy.

The growing world population one could be a problem in the short term, but when is the myth of Malthusianism going to die out? We should know, nowadays, that rich populations go into population decline after a certain point. Birth rates have plummeted among white Europeans and Americans, Iranians, and Japanese, some of the richest people in the world, and in general, as wealth increases, birth rates go down. Once Latin America, continental Asia, and Africa catch up to Europe and America, their birth rates should adjust too.

 

[sayak83]

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



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.



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.



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.

Scientists are quite happy to share scientific results. Unfortunately a large section of people are being taught to disbelieve science.
Common sense is not useful in science. Leads to absolutely wrong results.

 

[james bond]

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

Did they talk with you about it? My Catholic nuns had different degrees of questioning leading up to the Reverend Mother. They also had spanking with a paddle, having kids stand in the closet for 15 minutes or making them wear signs ridiculing themselves in front of the class. We probably had more things banned than the public school kids.

 

[leibowde84]

I can't say as I really care what opinion "scientists" have on energy policy.

Why do you feel this way? Energy scientists are the experts in terms of what technologies will be best and what is the best way to curb problems that arise. So, why would you want to ignore them.

When it comes to Malthusianism, that theory is based on a lack of "moral restraint" causing overpopulation. Contraception has been proven to be an effective tool in this regard. And, the point you made about rich societies might be accurate. But, that does not address the issue with growing populations causing more poverty worldwide.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

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.

This ...quiz...will not tell you how much you know about science. It will only tell you if you are entirely ignorant of science, or know at least some rather basic rudiments.

 

[siti]

My Catholic nuns had different degrees of questioning leading up to the Reverend Mother. They also had spanking with a paddle, having kids stand in the closet for 15 minutes or making them wear signs ridiculing themselves in front of the class.

Hmmm! I see...

 

[Ponder This]

I am not sure I am grokking here. Where did I say anything about anything being "held back in the press"? I was talking about education not media coverage. FYI they are not the same - mind you, given the sensationalized coverage of some of the issues perhaps the media is a force for de-educating the public. That might very well be part of the problem IMO. If the media were more intent on reporting the science rather than playing up 'the controversy' in the areas where public and scientific opinion diverge the most (i.e. climate change, evolution...etc) then the public would certainly be better informed...IMO.

Ah, what a world that would be! Where everyone actually read experiment reports in their entirety... something scientists today often do not do for anything outside of their chosen field of study and some don't even properly read for their field of study. As for media coverage focusing on controversies... that implies that there is a controversy to report on! So +1 media, +0 science.

My experience has been that among 'common people' (not sure what your classification system here is, but I'm assuming you're meaning mostly nonscientists with a high school education and maybe some college, etc.) is that more than "some," also lack 'common sense.' (Don't really know what YOU mean by 'common sense,' either...) Actually, considerably more than "some."

That sense which is not uncommon is common. Unfortunately, even though it is common, not everyone always has it. You can fool some of the people all the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all of time.

Scientists are quite happy to share scientific results. Unfortunately a large section of people are being taught to disbelieve science.
Common sense is not useful in science. Leads to absolutely wrong results.

An excellent breakdown of how common sense gets overlooked in science. Not only is common sense not seen to be useful by scientists, but it can even be viewed as a drawback! Even though abandoning your common sense can lead to great scientific discoveries, we still need common sense when it comes to how those great discoveries impact our world. Science can invent the atomic bomb; Common sense can tell you whether or not to use it.

 

[siti]

Ah, what a world that would be! Where everyone actually read experiment reports in their entirety... something scientists today often do not do for anything outside of their chosen field of study and some don't even properly read for their field of study.

But people who are paid to report scientific findings to the public should read them and understand the context...and present it sensibly.

As for media coverage focusing on controversies... that implies that there is a controversy to report on! So +1 media, +0 science.

What a load of B/S that is. "The controversy" (e.g. climate change, evolution, GM foods, stem cell research...etc.) is mostly a literary device used to sensationalize coverage and invented by pitting exaggerated versions of the informed opinion of scientists against the uninformed notions of crackpots.

 

[dianaiad]

So. Perfect score....but I'll admit to knowing about the Denver vs. LA thing from living in the mountains and having to use a pressure cooker....oh, and GETTING the Salk vaccine, and living through the Cold War and dealing with 'stop, drop and cover' drills.

Amazing what one learns from living through stuff.

Hey. I'm an English major. However, most of those questions ARE things one is supposed to learn in grade school; general knowledge.

 

[RedDragon94]

7 out of 12. I'm goin to MIT.

 

[Augustus]

Common sense is not useful in science. Leads to absolutely wrong results.

Common sense is very useful in the sciences and can prevent wrong results or help you interpret genuine results.

A disavowal of common sense is a step towards scientism.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It was because if you chose the wrong answer it would mean you do not know what astronomy is.

Or Astrometry. *Grin*

 

[Polymath257]

Common sense is very useful in the sciences and can prevent wrong results or help you interpret genuine results.

A disavowal of common sense is a step towards scientism.

And yet, many times the truth is very counter to what 'common sense' would say.

For centuries, people held to the 'common sense' idea that heavy things would fall faster than lighter things. It happens to be false. For centuries, people held to the 'common sense' idea that the Earth is the center of the universe. Again, it happens to be false.

And, more recently, people have held to the idea that two events seen to be simultaneous by one person would be seen as simultaneous by all. This is also known to be false. Common sense says that velocities add (if you are going 50 mph and someone passes you at 20mph, then they should be going at 50+20=70 mph). This is also known to be false.

Common sense is usually more useless than not. Once we get away from the every day realm, common sense fails miserably. So, for long time scales, or small distances, or in the middle of space, common sense is generally just wrong.

Now, we can *train* our intuitions to be more in line with reality. And we then develop a *new* sense of how things are. But that is far from common.

 

[Augustus]

And yet, many times the truth is very counter to what 'common sense' would say.

For centuries, people held to the 'common sense' idea that heavy things would fall faster than lighter things. It happens to be false. For centuries, people held to the 'common sense' idea that the Earth is the center of the universe. Again, it happens to be false.

And, more recently, people have held to the idea that two events seen to be simultaneous by one person would be seen as simultaneous by all. This is also known to be false. Common sense says that velocities add (if you are going 50 mph and someone passes you at 20mph, then they should be going at 50+20=70 mph). This is also known to be false.

Common sense is usually more useless than not. Once we get away from the every day realm, common sense fails miserably. So, for long time scales, or small distances, or in the middle of space, common sense is generally just wrong.

Now, we can *train* our intuitions to be more in line with reality. And we then develop a *new* sense of how things are. But that is far from common.

Scientific discoveries can run contrary to common sense =/= Common sense is useless for science

 

[Polymath257]

Scientific discoveries can run contrary to common sense =/= Common sense is useless for science

True. But the utility of common sense is greatly decreased in those areas where the truth is counter to it.

 

[Augustus]

True. But the utility of common sense is greatly decreased in those areas where the truth is counter to it.

Isn't the utility of almost anything greatly decreased when it is wrong?

The utility of scientific research is greatly decreased in those situations where the truth is counter to it.

Common sense tells you to take findings with a pinch of salt in those areas where science has a less than stellar record of being accurate in the past.

 

[Polymath257]

Isn't the utility of almost anything greatly decreased when it is wrong?

The utility of scientific research is greatly decreased in those situations where the truth is counter to it.

And which areas of knowledge are counter to scientific research?

Common sense tells you to take findings with a pinch of salt in those areas where science has a less than stellar record of being accurate in the past.

Then common sense once again fails to consider what is relevant. Instead of the accuracy in the past, perhaps the quality of data in the present is more pertinent.

Does common sense have a better track record for truth than scientific research?