Don't know much about Science Books

[Fazor]

Well, here's another (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090312115133.htm) "American's don't know no Science" articles. While I very much believe that science should be more of a focus in school, there's some things about the article that I don't like;


* Only 53% of adults know how long it takes for the Earth to revolve around the Sun.
* Only 59% of adults know that the earliest humans and dinosaurs did not live at the same time.
* Only 47% of adults can roughly approximate the percent of the Earth's surface that is covered with water.*
* Only 21% of adults answered all three questions correctly.

These sound more like trivia... I mean, yes they're phsyical science (and the first one, given what the test considers correct, should be a no-brainer). And the second one should be obvious.

But wouldn't questions that test reasoning and critical thinking be more appropriate?


Despite the fact that access to fresh water is likely to be one of the most pressing environmental issues over the coming years, less than 1% of U.S. adults know what percent of the planet's water is fresh (the correct answer is 3%). Nearly half didn't even hazard a guess. Additionally, 40% of U.S. adults say they are "not at all knowledgeable" about sustainability.

Okay, again, this sounds more like environmental awareness than anything else. Knowing facts about the world around you and knowing how to describe and test the world around you are two different things.

Maybe it's just me, but that didn't seem like a great test for scientific skills, as much as a test of knowledge.

[Swift]

I understand what you mean Fazor that those questions are more about science facts (I wouldn't really call any of those trivia), rather than science skills (such as critical thinking). But I think there is a basic level of science knowledge (concepts and facts) that the average adult should have. And I didn't see anywhere in the article where it said they were testing people's science "skills".

[Fazor]

Well, I guess the better way to look at it is that I didn't particularly consider those questions as a good indicator of science knowledge. I mean, honestly, if you don't know how long it takes for the earth to travel around the sun, or you think that we ran around hunting dinosaurs, may not have a lot of knowledge of history, politics, math, etc. either. In other words, your entire education is likely lacking.

Or maybe not; it doesn't talk about whether questions were asked to get a base-line on the subject's overall education.

[Gillianren]

Whether they're really science facts or not is not, to my mind, the point. The point as I see it is that everyone should know these things. I mean, I know there are ignorant creationists who will tell you that dinosaurs and humans walked together before the Flood, but I don't think they have the right to think that, since it is wrong. As is often pointed out, you have the right to your own opinion, but not your own facts. I can see being unsure as to the percentage of the Earth's surface that's covered in water, but you should at least have a near guess. But not to know how long it takes the Earth to revolve around the Sun? Unforgivable.

[kleindoofy]

... These sound more like trivia ...
Please excuse me if this sounds rude, but I don't think knowing how many days there are in a year is trivia.

Is knowing how many days there are in a week, how many weeks there are in a year and how many months our calender has also trivia?

Besides that, I learned the approximate area of the Earth that is covered by water in the 3rd grade.

I think think there's a difference between "science" and common knowledge (grade school level), and those three questions belong to the latter.

[edit:] I missed Fazor's second post. I agree, the basic education is lacking.

[Swift]

Well, I guess the better way to look at it is that I didn't particularly consider those questions as a good indicator of science knowledge. I mean, honestly, if you don't know how long it takes for the earth to travel around the sun, or you think that we ran around hunting dinosaurs, may not have a lot of knowledge of history, politics, math, etc. either. In other words, your entire education is likely lacking.

Or maybe not; it doesn't talk about whether questions were asked to get a base-line on the subject's overall education.
I'm going to guess (yep, I have no data), that if tested a bunch of US high school graduates, that they would do relatively better on English and math skills/facts/knowledge, then on science and history. There has been a lot of documentation lately that the average citizen's knowledge of those two areas is severely lacking.

And I would classify the fact that the Earth goes around the sun and it takes nominally 365 days as a "science" fact, as opposed to history or gym.

But that's just my gut feeling, backed up by nothing.

[KaiYeves]

Only 59% of adults know that the earliest humans and dinosaurs did not live at the same time.
I blame The Flintstones.

[raptorthang]

There is a lot of cultural bias in any general set of questions. Why is it more 'science-wise' to know the % of water that is fresh as opposed to the salt content of our own human blood? Humans are apes...name the last 3 species we are thought to evolve from...or is it more valid for some reason to know more about astronomy?

Every science discipline has hundreds of facts that are not known to even 'other' scientists. Some facts 'get out there' as part of common culture....more kids can identify a panda than a capybara . ..Why? capybaras are much more numerous and every bit as important to their ecosystem. More folks could identify a photo of Saturn than Mars... if you can't distinguish a photo of Neptune from Uranus are you uneducated? No, it's just that the rings of saturn are part of our cultural make up.

The fellow who seems 'so ignorant' of knowing the distance to the Moon, etc. might just understand how a carburetor regulates the flow of air and fuel into the engine. A fisherman might not know about an ocean on theother side of the Earth but he understands the ebb and flow of tides and their impact on fish populations. 'What's that' asks the science professor...'it's a cod' answers the fisherman (thinking this guy is as dumb as a sack of doorknobs).

[Moose]

The fellow who seems 'so ignorant' of knowing the distance to the Moon, etc. might just understand how a carburetor regulates the flow of air and fuel into the engine.

Or he might know there aren't many cars anymore with carburetors. ;)

I would have liked to have seen the actual questions asked. It's not completely unreasonable that someone would know the earth revolves around the sun and that a year is a year, but not quite make the connection between the two facts.

Same with dinos and humans never having met, over and above Hovind's creationism claims. If someone isn't very interested in palaeontology, it's a relatively easy fact to miss.

[raptorthang]

Or he might know there aren't many cars anymore with carburetors. ;)

.

Culturally you assumed I was talking about cars in North America. Perhaps he's designing a new carburetor for his chain saw in Vladisvostok.

This isn't about science but about geography. 'If' you were to interview a hundred students in a high school and not one had ever heard of Chicago , Los Angeles or Detroit... you would think what? Uninformed morons.

True happening. Of a test group of hundred students in a high school, not one had ever heard of 14 of 17 Chinese cities with over 6,000,000 people each. Or knew the most populated metropolitan area in the world, Chongqing, with 30,000,000? Like me, you'd say 'gee, I never heard of them. Beijing, Hong Kong, Shanghai but not those other 14 on the list...sure, Guangzhou might have three times the population of Detroit but ...hey...it's not the same thing' Probably thought guangzhou is something on the menu at a Chinese restaurant.

We don't go into tirades about the state of education because we understand perspective and context. We understand that 'what's important' is largely dictated by culture and society. It applies to science as much as geography or history. There's 8 (or 9) planets in our solar system but how many protons in a Carbon 12 atom? Are you science illiterate if you don't know. Since we're made of the stuff one would think it more important to know than the eighth planet from the Sun is Neptune. Even most of us scientists aren't science literate outside of cultural expectations

[closetgeek]

The fellow who seems 'so ignorant' of knowing the distance to the Moon, etc. might just understand how a carburetor regulates the flow of air and fuel into the engine. A fisherman might not know about an ocean on theother side of the Earth but he understands the ebb and flow of tides and their impact on fish populations. 'What's that' asks the science professor...'it's a cod' answers the fisherman (thinking this guy is as dumb as a sack of doorknobs).

You are comparing common knowledge to tradeskills; The difference between a trade and common knowledge is that the trade is reinforced, daily. Not knowing how much of the Earth is covered by water, is probably not going to hurt the stockbrokers account. I think it's safe to say that all of the examples of questions were a part of basic, grade school, science. I question the age factor for that reason. Were any of those questions open to debate say, 50yrs ago when a particular participant was last in school?

[Swift]

I think an important consideration is whether you are a citizen of a participatory democracy. If people are voting for candidates, or deciding issues, that involve scientific issues (stem cells, global warming, energy policy, etc.) one would hope that they have at least a fundamental knowledge of some of the science. How can one make even a slightly informed decision about stem cell research, for example, if you don't even understand what a cell is?

Now mind you, I have nothing against carburetors, or the people who understand them, but I'm not sure this is knowledge that everyone needs.

[Fazor]

but I'm not sure this is knowledge that everyone needs.
I could live a long happy life and not know the ratio of the water to land surface area of earth.

But if anything, my argument is that the questions were too easy. Knowing or not knowing the answers, in my mind, doesn't depict a knowledge of science per se. That's why I almost consider it "trivia", the same way I wouldn't think that knowing the number of letters in the English alphabet means you have a good grasp on grammar, or knowing what a plus sign is means you know math.

[Jeff Root]

Fazor,

I think that the fact that the percentage of correct answers ranged
around 50% suggests that the questions were sensitive to knowledge
of whatever was being tested. (And I'd say that knowledge of science
is what was being tested.) A high percentage of correct answers
indicates the questions are easy; a low percentage suggests they
are hard. Fifty percent suggests they are probably appropriate for
getting a good measurement of the tested population's knowledge.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Fazor]

*Shrug* I guess. Reading the article though, I just wasn't convinced that it was a good test. Wouldn't be the first time I was wrong, however.

[raptorthang]

but I'm not sure this is knowledge that everyone needs.
I could live a long happy life and not know the ratio of the water to land surface area of earth.

But if anything, my argument is that the questions were too easy. Knowing or not knowing the answers, in my mind, doesn't depict a knowledge of science per se. That's why I almost consider it "trivia", the same way I wouldn't think that knowing the number of letters in the English alphabet means you have a good grasp on grammar, or knowing what a plus sign is means you know math.

Exactly. It's trivia because it's what's 'out there' in the culture. The common knowledge of how many planets there are is no more a sign of 'science' knowledge than naming the four Beatles. Knowing the number of planets is no more important to understanding science than knowing how many protons there are in a carbon molecule. 98% of the population would not know the latter....even many folks in science would not know. The fact that the mechanic, the astronomer and the baker all know the names of the planets says nothing about knowledge of science.

What we think is 'more important' to know is culturally based.

[Swift]

I could live a long happy life and not know the ratio of the water to land surface area of earth.

But is that the criteria (living a long happy life) for what we want the education system to teach people? Maybe it is? Will people live longer and/or be happier if they know the Earth goes around the sun, or they can name the judges on American Idol? They say ignorance is bliss; I'm guessing the average person is approaching nirvana.

[Fazor]

:) Oh, come now. You know that the saying "Ignorance is bliss" is going to attract Gillian's attention.

[Paul Beardsley]

I'm reading this thread with interest, and I haven't made up my mind yet.

I would remark, however, that surely most scientists would know how many protons there are in a carbon atom. When I was 14 or 15, we had to learn the first 20 elements.

[Gillianren]

The common knowledge of how many planets there are is no more a sign of 'science' knowledge than naming the four Beatles.

Yeah, no. No, that's not true. The Beatles are music and, to a lesser extent, history. Now, I do think a certain amount of music knowledge is required for a well-rounded education, but knowing how many planets there are is, in fact, science knowledge. No, you can't say that it's terribly in-depth, but it is science. In fact, I would say that science and language are the two things you absorb without having to be taught them, at least on their most basic level. Not even math--yeah, you can do greater than and less than, and you know that two plus two equals more than two, but just by living, you notice that it's warmer in the summer than the winter. That's science. You notice that you float in water. That's science. Science is a fundamental part of how we live, and some of it is so intuititve that we don't even know that it's there.

Yes. I do think everyone should know how long it takes the Earth to go around the Sun, and not to know that is scientifically ignorant. No, I don't think it's just a cultural thing. It's been a necessary piece of information for thousands of years, because if you don't know it, if you don't know how long it takes to go from season to season, your crops aren't going to get planted and you're not going to plan things properly. No, thousands of years ago, they didn't think it was the Earth going around the Sun, but even ancient cultures knew it was a change of the Sun in the sky.

Last night over dinner, my friends and I were listing "things everyone should know." Now, to be fair, a lot of them were US-centric--for example, name all the Presidents in your lifetime and five before it. However, it was a conversation started by this information, because my friends couldn't imagine not knowing some of the things I'm constantly telling them the average person doesn't know.

[Jeff Root]

Gillian,

That was absolutely GREAT!

Terrific insight about language and science. At first consideration, I
agree completely.

I do have one partial disagreement, about trivia. You did hedge your
statement, so maybe we actually agree:



knowing how many planets there are is, in fact, science knowledge.
No, you can't say that it's terribly in-depth, but it is science.
In this thread:

http://www.bautforum.com/astronomy/85170-ok-now-i-know-why-pluto-not-planet.html

an article by Neil deGrasse Tyson was referenced:

http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/read/articles/plutosrequiem

in which he implies that enumerating the planets is trivia. I agree.
Saying that there are "this many" planets makes no more sense than
saying there are seven continents.

But saying that there are seven continents does make *some* sense.
We use place names such as "Europe" and "Asia" to keep track of where
things are and where events happen, and it is helpful to know that we
have named all of the biggest land masses when we have named seven
of them, ticking them off on our fingers as we do. So there is reason
for nonscientists to count continents and count planets-- but only as
a memory aid. It isn't science that there are X number of either.

On my web pages about the planets (made before the Pluto question
came to a head: http://www.freemars.org/jeff/planets/planets5.htm),
I mention the moons very briefly. Here is all I say about the moons
of the gas giant planets:

Jupiter - Four large moons, easily visible through binoculars,
and more than 50 small moons.

Saturn - One large moon, four medium-size moons, and more than
two dozen small moons.

Uranus - Five medium-size moons and more than 20 small moons.

Neptune - One large moon and at least ten small moons.

I left the number of small moons in each case unspecified except
to give an indication of roughly how many were known at that time.
I haven't felt a pressing need to update those numbers as more
moons have been discovered. That is trivia, as far as my target
audience is concerned.

But having an overall view that the planets generally have moons,
some being quite large but few in number, others, so small that they
are hard to detect, but more abundant-- that is not trivia.

I label some moons as "large", some as "medium", and others as
"small" because they just happen to group into those size ranges,
with considerable gaps between the groups. Actually they group
into five ranges, but I combined groups that were not so widely
separated, to get three:

http://www.freemars.org/jeff2/moons1a.htm

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[KaiYeves]

And there are 12 electrons and six protons in a Carbon atom. I'm taking Chemistry this year. So there.

[Jeff Root]

And there are 12 protons in a Carbon atom.
Something like that...



I'm taking Chemistry this year. So there.
You're in eleventh grade, aren't you? My school only offered
chemistry in twelfth grade. Physics in eleventh.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[KaiYeves]

Six protons, twelve electrons! Man, I'm an idiot. I guess I was thinking of electrons because I like them better.

[mugaliens]

Well, here's another (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090312115133.htm) "American's don't know no Science" articles. While I very much believe that science should be more of a focus in school, there's some things about the article that I don't like;

These sound more like trivia... I mean, yes they're phsyical science (and the first one, given what the test considers correct, should be a no-brainer). And the second one should be obvious.

But wouldn't questions that test reasoning and critical thinking be more appropriate?

Okay, again, this sounds more like environmental awareness than anything else. Knowing facts about the world around you and knowing how to describe and test the world around you are two different things.

Maybe it's just me, but that didn't seem like a great test for scientific skills, as much as a test of knowledge.

Actually, I find all of this quite encouraging...

[Jeff Root]

Six protons, twelve electrons! Man, I'm an idiot.
You'll get it on the next try. :D



I guess I was thinking of electrons because I like them better.
Electrons are more familiar, since they are pretty much all we
can see. But I try to stay neutral.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Jeff Root]

This electron/proton/neutron and atom/molecule confusion is awfully
easy to trip over. I get it wrong on the first try more often than not.
One thing to note is that although oxygen molecules are usually
diatomic, carbon molecules aren't-- they are usually multiply-bonded,
which is why they are great for making life.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Gillianren]

You're in eleventh grade, aren't you? My school only offered
chemistry in twelfth grade. Physics in eleventh.

My school offered chemistry before physics, though I skipped chemistry. Various of my classmates (in other classes) took physics in tenth grade and were in Physics II in eleventh.

[closetgeek]

Yes. I do think everyone should know how long it takes the Earth to go around the Sun, and not to know that is scientifically ignorant. No, I don't think it's just a cultural thing. It's been a necessary piece of information for thousands of years, because if you don't know it, if you don't know how long it takes to go from season to season, your crops aren't going to get planted and you're not going to plan things properly. No, thousands of years ago, they didn't think it was the Earth going around the Sun, but even ancient cultures knew it was a change of the Sun in the sky.


I have actually been hung up on this for a couple of days. I agree that it should be known but I can't think of a supporting reason why. Crops and harvesting was what I first went to, as well but when I gave it some thought; farming is far older then the knowledge of our position in the solar system. So far, the only thing I can come up with is plain old; a better understanding of your surroundings can reduce the likely hood of jumping to superstitions. Joe Mechanic, down the street, who makes a good living and supports his own family, has absolutely no effect on me, his belief that the sun circles the Earth.
I just want to point out that I chose mechanic because it's a trade that can be learned without any knowledge of planetary positions as well as bring in a good living. I don't think mechanics are less intelligent, incase anyone cares to read into that, quite the contrary; it's not an easy skill to learn.

[Swift]

I agree that it should be known but I can't think of a supporting reason why.
I too have been thinking about this. And maybe the answer is (though I struggle to believe it) that unless it is part of your job, there is no good reason to know science. :(

I did gave one idea in post 12.

I think an important consideration is whether you are a citizen of a participatory democracy. If people are voting for candidates, or deciding issues, that involve scientific issues (stem cells, global warming, energy policy, etc.) one would hope that they have at least a fundamental knowledge of some of the science. How can one make even a slightly informed decision about stem cell research, for example, if you don't even understand what a cell is?

[Fazor]

I too have been thinking about this. And maybe the answer is (though I struggle to believe it) that unless it is part of your job, there is no good reason to know science.

That is why I make the distinction between science facts (such as the three questions in question here) and science. Knowing that Pluto is no longer considered a planet might not help me sell insurance. But knowing the scientific method, and knowing how to identify cause and effect, and the ability to identify causality but eliminate coincidence, is very important. I'm not saying I'm a scientific genius (obviously); but when people spend millions buying magnetic bracelets to cure arthritis, we know people aren't thinking critically enough.

Which is why I say I agree with the study's claim that we need better focus on science, while at the same time I don't particularly like the poll they used to prove that.

[Swift]

And my guess is that "most" people don't know either the facts or the methods.

[Lurky]

Ideally we all should know everything...things would be a lot easier. :)

But good grief, I'm lucky some mornings to find my shoes and car keys yet alone remember what I learned way back in grade school.

We are all so busy and shoved for time...cramming our specifics of our days and careers into our brains everyday...who's got the time (or brain cells left) to learn all the basics of grade school again? I'd love to go back to high school btw and refresh my knowledge of what I was suppose to learn.

But the reality is that as Americans we go to work ...hammer out our days... drive home in the traffic jam.... shove some convenience food in our faces and watch some brainless tv to decompress...and then fall into bed.

It's cultural...definitely.

I'm not saying that it's GOOD the way most of us live... but our lifestyle is not really indicative of our learning capacity as a whole.

[Tucson_Tim]

Don't know much about history
Don't know much biology
Don't know much about a science book
Don't know much about the french I took

Don't know much about geography
Don't know much trigonometry
Don't know much about algebra
Don't know what a slide rule is for


(from "Wonderful World", sung/written by Sam Cooke)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wonderful_World_(song)

[Swift]

Ideally we all should know everything...things would be a lot easier. :)

I know you put the smilie in, but I'm going to be serious. I don't think anyone is claiming everyone should know everything. But I think that students at the end of their formal education, as well as the average adult, should have some set of basic knowledge, whether it is facts or methods, as Fazor puts it.

To me, the relevant debate here is how much of what most of us call science should the average person know. There seems to be a range of opinions here (on a science forum), down to the level of pretty much nothing (if it doesn't harm their job or their happiness). I have a problem with that low a standard, but maybe its just me.

I actually find it kind of sad that there are adults who don't know it takes a year for the Earth to go around the sun. But I guess I have to concede that maybe that's just my distorted view of what's important.

By the way, I have to confess (and its interesting that I think this is a confession). I asked my wife yesterday two of the questions I could remember. She did know that dinosaurs and humans didn't co-exist, but she didn't know it took a year for the Earth to go around the sun. She is the first to admit she doesn't know science, but I was genuinely surprised she didn't know this.

[Lurky]

She did know that dinosaurs and humans didn't co-exist, but she didn't know it took a year for the Earth to go around the sun. She is the first to admit she doesn't know science, but I was genuinely surprised she didn't know this.

But I bet that she USED to know... at some point she was probably taught this in grade school and just forgot. She's probably got all sorts of other 'important to her' facts stored in her brain where the "365 days to circle the sun" fact used to sit. She can relearn it... we all can.

My hubby and I are accountants...we shake our heads when peeps pay to have their taxes done. This is vital info to us all as you know... :whistle: ...very important business to understand the basics of accounting theory and know how to take care of your personal finances...

lol...

I guess my point is that there is so much to know ... and remember...and as we get very involved with life's responsibilities some things gotta give... some sort of brain input has gotta be deleted or shoved to the back.

[Gillianren]

She is the first to admit she doesn't know science, but I was genuinely surprised she didn't know this.

I am, too; even Graham looked at me as though I were crazy, and not just to my usual level, for asking the question.

[Arneb]

I suggest that the questions in the poll not be judged on their own merit. It is mildly interesting but not important, for the purposes of the poll, if it is more appropriate to consider them "scientific knowledge" or "trivia" -

They are probes. It is quite inconceivable that someone who knows the first thing about astronomy does not know that the revolution of the Earth around the Sun is what makes a year; that someone who knows the history of the Earth even in the broadest, 2" brush strokes will not know that dinosaurs are staggeringly old and that human history is but a blink in Earth's history; or that anyone who is remotely familiar with the shape of the Earth will not place the land/water ratio somewhere in 1/3-2/3 land simply by eyeballing. If you will, they are the kind of trivia that noone who has put even the slightest interest in the science of Space and the Earth can avoid to get acquainted with. I think these questions are good probes.

Glitches happen, I know; an accomplished chemist may draw a carbon atom with 5 valencies, or the English professor with the Encyclopedic knowledge may misplace "To be or not to be" into Macbeth - for a moment, until they are rudely awakened by the laughter of their classes. But I don't think the poll is heavily influenced by those slipups.

[cjl]

Six protons, twelve electrons! Man, I'm an idiot. I guess I was thinking of electrons because I like them better.

Try again :)

Hint: atoms are electrically neutral.

As for the questions asked, I agree that they fall into the category of basic science knowledge that everyone should have, with the possible exception of the percentage of the earth's surface covered in water. Yes, they may just be memorized facts, but that doesn't mean they aren't science.

[Jeff Root]

Arneb,

That was another post of truly great observations! Great! Great! Great!

cjl,

I think the question about the percentage of the earth's surface covered
in water was a very good choice. It certainly isn't important to get the
answer to 1% accuracy, or even 10% accuracy. But certainly anyone
in the last hundred and fifty years or so who doesn't have a reasonably
good idea of the ratio of water to land is an ignoramous. It is such a
basic piece of information about the world that everyone should be
expected to know it. Which brings up this little thing...



land/water ratio somewhere in 1/3-2/3 land
Actually it is a bit less than 1/3 land... :)

A good example of what Arneb was talking about...

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Paul Beardsley]

But the reality is that as Americans we go to work ...
Just to check, I take it you are aware that a fair few of us on this board are not American?

Aside from that, you make good, interesting points.

[Paul Beardsley]

Arneb,

That was another post of truly great observations! Great! Great! Great!

I second that. I particularly like the "glitches" thing, which can be quite endearing.

[geonuc]

Arneb,

That was another post of truly great observations!
Agreed - Arneb nailed it once again.

I'd even be satisfied with a 50/50 split as an answer for earth's water/land ratio. If you are basing your answer just by your image of a world map rather than someone having told you the exact ratio in school, it's pretty easy to underestimate the water. A lot of water bodies are 'captured' in areas that, at a glance, you put into the land category. For example, the Gulf of Mexico, Hudson Bay, even the Mediterranean.

[Paul Beardsley]

And of course the Pacific is normally on the edges of the map, simply because there's nothing to see there apart from water.

[Arneb]

Actually it is a bit less than 1/3 land... :)

A good example of what Arneb was talking about...

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Oh dear... I was trying to be linguistically clever, and now the sentence came out totally wrong. I wanted to say that the land water/ratio is somewehere in the vicinity of 1/3 against 2/3. Then, instead of "in the vicinity of" I said "land", ignoring that "land" was also the subject of the question...:wall::wall::wall:

Thanks, everyone.

[Lurky]

Just to check, I take it you are aware that a fair few of us on this board are not American?




Of course... but the OP's discussion centered around the Americans' "ignorance" so I was drawing a conclusion with that in mind.

[Fazor]

I'd even be satisfied with a 50/50 split as an answer for earth's water/land ratio. If you are basing your answer just by your image of a world map rather than someone having told you the exact ratio in school, it's pretty easy to underestimate the water.

They noted what their acceptable range was on this question. Without revisiting the article, I think they said they'd accept anywhere between 60-85% water. So all the "wrong" answers were outside that.

My answer would have been "Two-thirds-ish", so if I had to answer in percentage form, I'd say about 66%.

I don't know if I'd accept 50/50, as you should at least know there's more water surface than land, as that's a fact that gets stated quite often.

But now I'm back to feeling divided over what I think people who are not in fields or peer groups related to earth science should have heard, ormight not have heard--and what, even if they did hear, they should feel important enough to remember.

I mean, do you honestly remember every statistic you were ever told, even in areas you don't personally care about?

[Swift]

I mean, do you honestly remember every statistic you were ever told, even in areas you don't personally care about?
A recent study found that I remember 72.736% of them. ;)

[Lurky]

But now I'm back to feeling divided over what I think people who are not in fields or peer groups related to earth science should have heard, ormight not have heard--and what, even if they did hear, they should feel important enough to remember.



Ok, my degree was in accounting... college level classes I took were zoology lab and genetics. So any earth science info that I remember goes waaaay back from what I learned in high school...and I was not a good student then... rather detached.

I would have gotten the first two questions correct. I would have guessed ocean/land ratio at about 75/25...sorry I know that's bad. But I have a fear of water so the ocean looks HUGE to me on the globe! Lol!

Fresh water ratio...I would have had no idea and would have guessed between 15% - 10%.

What I feel is important to remember? All of it.

What I think is possible for the average person to remember? Depends on their brains' ability for information retention, how often that info must be 'retrieved', education, stress levels, age... too many factors to mention.

[Arneb]

I would have guessed ocean/land ratio at about 75/25...sorry I know that's bad.

But... that's very close to the true ratio, isn't it (70/30)? No need to be unsatisfied here, if you ask me.

[closetgeek]

I too have been thinking about this. And maybe the answer is (though I struggle to believe it) that unless it is part of your job, there is no good reason to know science. :(

I did gave one idea in post 12.


Quote:
I think an important consideration is whether you are a citizen of a participatory democracy. If people are voting for candidates, or deciding issues, that involve scientific issues (stem cells, global warming, energy policy, etc.) one would hope that they have at least a fundamental knowledge of some of the science. How can one make even a slightly informed decision about stem cell research, for example, if you don't even understand what a cell is?

Reading that paragraph a second time, that makes more sense. I don't think I interpreted what you were saying correctly, the first time. That, IMHO, is a legitimate reason to expect a higher level of science education, especially when it can play such a predominant factor in elections. At first I thought you were talking about advisors so I felt that statement landed in the, you have to know it because it's your job, catagory.

[Fazor]

I agree with Swift and Closetgeek, (sorry swift, I missed the post the first time around). But that problem is not exclusive to science. And then there's the problem that, since legislature covers everything, you should only be voting if you have a sound and thorough grasp on, well, everything. Theoretically, that's why we have elected officials to call upon experts to help make those decisions without the average voter needing to be educated in every facet of knowlege.

Whether the current system works, is working, or can't work, well this isn't the time and place for that. I think a discussion on good ways to make it easier to make difficult, complex decisions in the best interest of many who don't understand (fully or partially) what's involved could be scientific, but I'd also say it wouldn't be possible to discuss that without it falling into politics rather quickly and ugly'ly.

[Swift]

As I said above (post 35), I don't think everyone needs to know everything about everything. But maybe you do need to know something about lots of things. I'm hard pressed to say how a basic knowledge of automatic transmissions or the writings of Emily Bronte are essential to the average voter, though both have been taught in US high schools. But I do think some basics of science, as well as maybe history, civics, economics, and a few similar topics might be essential, if we hope to have an informed electorate.

So, I can dream. But realistically, I don't see it happening anytime in the near future.

[Fazor]

Anyway, do voters really need to be informed? Isn't that what commercials and billboards are for? :)

[Lurky]

I think many Americans need a refresher course in politics, American government and economics (macro and micro) before they should be allowed to vote.

Our system relys so heavily on trust ... freaks me out a lil' bit. :shifty:

[Gillianren]

Well, when my book (that I really need to start writing) on "things everyone should know" comes out, I can assure you that I'll put a fair amount of basic civics into it. Yes, the book will be pretty US-centric, as I think I said earlier, but you do need to know things like the three branches of government and how Congress works, not to mention your system of local government and how initiatives work.

The thing is, when I say "things everyone should know," part of it is just to be a properly-rounded individual. No, it probably won't substantively change your life if you can't name five of Shakespeare's plays. However, you can't have a good grounding in the English language without at least some knowledge of the man, since so many of our words and idioms come from there. No, most people don't really need to know the names of at least five elements, but a greater knowledge of the periodic table of elements would have been handy when I was helping a friend shop for wedding rings last night.

[Swift]

No, it probably won't substantively change your life if you can't name five of Shakespeare's plays.
Hamlet, Romeo & Julliet, Macbeth, Merchant of Venice, Much ado about nothing...

No, most people don't really need to know the names of at least five elements,
Hydrogen, helium, lithium, beryllium, boron....

But this is the better version (http://www.privatehand.com/flash/elements.html)

[Fazor]

I would have said "R&J, Hamlet, MacBeth, Midsummer Night's Dream, and Taming of the Shrew" and/or Othello. I will admit, however, that I don't quickly recall the last four, and could easily see myself failing to come up with them if asked when I didn't have time to think about it.

The element one is easy. Cheesonium. Beeronium. Nachonium. etc. ...what?

[Paul Beardsley]

Hamlet, Romeo & Julliet, Macbeth, Merchant of Venice, Much ado about nothing...
The Tragical History of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, The Most Excellent and Lamentable Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet, The Tragedy of Macbeth, The Most Excellent History of the Merchant of Venice, and Much Ado About Nothing...

;)

[Gillianren]

Bravo, sir! Personally, I go with Twelfth Night, or What You Will.

[Swift]

The element one is easy. Cheesonium. Beeronium. Nachonium. etc. ...what?
Earth, wind, fire, water, and Milla Jovovich.

[Gillianren]

Heh. At the Watchmen premiere, one of the previews was for Angels and Demons. Tom Hanks was going on about the various symbols for the various elements, and he gets to the fifth symbol, and all I could think was, "Heart!"

[boppa]

And of course the Pacific is normally on the edges of the map, simply because there's nothing to see there apart from water.

tis??

looks at my map...

nope here its in the centre
the two american contintents are on the right, and africa/western europe on the left

I do think that many questions are culturally based- we played an online trivia game here one night a couple of weeks ago...
Name the first 5 presidents....

um - we have prime ministers....

ohh first 5 us presidents....

um- washington(the cherry tree guy??)
lincone- got shot right? (dunno how to spell it tho)
um


bush and obama...

um .... clinton and the actor guy...reagon!!!

it assumed `everyone' knew the first 5 us presidents...

not 1 here could even name 5 us.presidents in total without a lot of - um the guy - monica's fella- what was his name?? type prompting going on...


(just as a test- I chucked in the o.p's questions tonight)
5 people got q1 right out of 5 (365 days/1 year)
5 people got q2 right out of 5 (no- tens of millions of years between dinos and humans)
5 people got a approximate 75/25 split- but there was a variation in answers- 1 60/40, 3 75/25, 1 65/35 and 1 79.5/20.5

and a lot of laughter as well btw

[Paul Beardsley]

tis??

looks at my map...

nope here its in the centre
the two american contintents are on the right, and africa/western europe on the left

I had a feeling I was setting myself up for a reply like this! :)

A while back, a hoax believer came on BAUT and did all the usual sheeple nonsense. When I pointed out the weight of evidence supporting the idea that Apollo happened as described, he dismissed me as a "patriot". It didn't occur to him that non-Americans frequent this board, despite the fact that I included my location. That's the most an HB has ever made me laugh.

[boppa]

Glad to make your day ;-)

I did find it interesting the youngest person here (15) was under the impression that the two george w's were the same person, not father and son...

(admittedly they were still watching kiddy cartoons when the first george was around)

did make me think `hmmmm.....' tho

[HenrikOlsen]

I did find it interesting the youngest person here (15) was under the impression that the two george w's were the same person, not father and son...

(admittedly they were still watching kiddy cartoons when the first george was around)
They had kiddie cartoons in the late eighteenth century? (thinking the first George W. was Washington )

You meant the two George Bush'es, didn't you, the elder is George H. W. not George W.

[boppa]

lol's

ya got me

(I wasnt even aware of that- every mention of them that I remember just says either george bush (snr/jnr) or president bush (snr/jnr) when they are talking about them together...or president bush/ expresident bush

I tend to pay little attention to most news re the U.S.A- occassionally there is something that impacts on me, but most of it is `fluff' or filler type stuff for the news broadcasts

[darkhunter]

Earth, Air, Fire, Water, and Suprise :)

[Gillianren]

(I wasnt even aware of that- every mention of them that I remember just says either george bush (snr/jnr) or president bush (snr/jnr) when they are talking about them together...or president bush/ expresident bush

I refer to "Bush the Elder" and "Bush the Younger," because they violate the "junior rule"--in order to be strictly speaking "junior," you must actually have the same name. They don't even have the same initials.


I tend to pay little attention to most news re the U.S.A- occassionally there is something that impacts on me, but most of it is `fluff' or filler type stuff for the news broadcasts

Probably true. But US Presidents can have a lot of influence over the rest of the world. Oh, and it's "Lincoln." Simply knowing approximately when the US was formed (the late eighteenth century being accurate enough for this) should tell you that Lincoln couldn't possibly have been in the first five Presidents, as the UK still had slavery until well past the founding of the US, and they abolished slavery first.

[Arneb]

I've seen "Bush 41" and "Bush 43" used, but recognizing them based on these two numbers is probably not among the "Things Everbody Should know". :)

[Gillianren]

"List all the Presidents of your lifetime. List at least five Presidents from before your lifetime."

Though also "List at least five British monarchs (no, Henry I-V doesn't count). List at least two British Prime Ministers."

[Jeff Root]

"List all the Presidents of your lifetime. List at least five Presidents
from before your lifetime."
Do you remember where you got the idea for that question?

(I can go backwards to William McKinley, but I'm not real sure of
the order circa Coolidge, Taft, and Wilson.) (When asked, I missed
one, so I was prompted with "Sounds like a vacuum cleaner.")

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[KaiYeves]

Backwards as far as I can go, my lifetime in bold:
Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Regan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman, Roosevelt, Hoover, Coolidge, Harding, Wilson, Taft, Roosevelt, McKinley, Cleveland, Harrison. (Cleveland only counts once, right?)

[Tobin Dax]

Earth, wind, fire, water, and Milla Jovovich.
Heh. At the Watchmen premiere, one of the previews was for Angels and Demons. Tom Hanks was going on about the various symbols for the various elements, and he gets to the fifth symbol, and all I could think was, "Heart!"
Well, Milla got my heart pumping. (I really don't want to acknowledge the Captain Planet reference, despite making it myself on rare occasions.)

I was going to talk about teaching science to more-or-less uninterested students and convincing physics/engineering students I advise that the "boring stuff" (as it was phrased to me the other day, meaning topics that aren't science or math) can be fun and interesting. As I thought about what I was going to write, I decided to just say this: Gillian, let me know when that book comes out. You've made a sale.

I enjoyed getting a well-rounded education, and I fully support the idea. This is despite the fact that a good portion of that knowledge has gotten a bit fuzzy.

Presidents: IIRC, four of the first five were Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and J.Q. Adams. I thought I could get another one right, and I'm not sure about the second Adams.
In my lifetime: Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, G.W. Bush, Obama. I could probably get most of the presidents since FDR, but I'd have to think about their order. This might even be true going back to Hoover. (I know roughly when they were in office, but I'd have to think to get the chronology right.)

I did just remember my father chiding me while I was college that I had all of the science and sci-fi books, but not one with a list of the U.S. presidents. I actually did still have my high school history book (a college textbook). I have not idea if I still have it.

[Gillianren]

Do you remember where you got the idea for that question?

The Presidents during your lifetime just seems like something you should know anyway. (Same as Tobin Dax's but add Ford, albeit just barely. Carter was inaugurated less than six weeks later. Also, going from Hoover to the present is not substantially longer than going FDR to the present!) At any point at which you became aware of the greater world, who was leading your country would be a part of that. From there, you only have to add two or three before it. As for knowing five . . . well, I could probably do them all. (You're missing Monroe, TD, and Madison, not J. Q. Adams, who was sixth.) Not in order, but I can probably name them. Even the boring ones. Knowing all of them would be nice. But at minimum, five seemed reasonable.

[Tobin Dax]

The Presidents during your lifetime just seems like something you should know anyway. (Same as Tobin Dax's but add Ford, albeit just barely. Carter was inaugurated less than six weeks later. Also, going from Hoover to the present is not substantially longer than going FDR to the present!) At any point at which you became aware of the greater world, who was leading your country would be a part of that. From there, you only have to add two or three before it. As for knowing five . . . well, I could probably do them all. (You're missing Monroe, TD, and Madison, not J. Q. Adams, who was sixth.) Not in order, but I can probably name them. Even the boring ones. Knowing all of them would be nice. But at minimum, five seemed reasonable.
I always tend to think that you're a couple years younger than you are, Gillian. I almost forget Carter every time, but Reagan hadn't been voted into office in the month I was born. Mt. St. Helens hadn't blown yet, either.

I thought John Quincy Adams was sixth. I'm pretty sure I've made that mistake before. Madison, for some reason, I place too too late. I'm sure there's no good reason for that. Especially since I lived on Madison Avenue in college. Monroe is a main street next to the OSU campus, too. :doh: Maybe I'll finally remember the first five now.

[Jeff Root]

Gillian,

I thought maybe you got the idea for the presidents question from being
asked something like it in an initial evaluation by a psychiatrist. Wonder
why I would think it might be a standard question....

I can probably name all the presidents given sufficient time, but I would
have no way of knowing when I got them all because I don't know how
many there have been now. Come to think of it, at the time of Obama's
inauguration, I think I recall the number 47 being mentioned. Apparently
Obama used the number in his inaugural speech, and it was mentioned
in later discussion on NPR that he'd got it wrong because of Cleveland's
in-out-in presidencies. Anyway, it is interesting that I come up with
this need for a count of presidents to aid my memory just after agreeing
with Neil D. Tyson that counting planets is pointless. Maybe it isn't.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Tinaa]

On an American History exam we had to name all the presidents and name something that happened during their time in office. I made up a song to remember the names in order. Still remember it after all these years.

[Arneb]

many there have been now. Come to think of it, at the time of Obama's inauguration, I think I recall the number 47 being mentioned. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Hi Jeff, Obama is the 44th President of the USA, Grover Cleveland being (as it should be) counted as 22nd and 24th President. This numbering is what I was alluding to in my "Bush 41 and Bush 43" post yesterday.

I can't name them all, before FDR it gets spotty. But then, I don't have to take a US American citizenship test...:-

[Tobin Dax]

On an American History exam we had to name all the presidents and name something that happened during their time in office. I made up a song to remember the names in order. Still remember it after all these years.
I can't help but post a link to the Animaniacs song about the presidents now. :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vvy0wRLD5s8
After watching, I've learned that I was wrong. I can't accurately go back farther than Kennedy.

[Gillianren]

I thought maybe you got the idea for the presidents question from being asked something like it in an initial evaluation by a psychiatrist. Wonder why I would think it might be a standard question....

If you are being hospitalized, which I haven't been, they tend to ask you who is currently President, because it's a good indicator that you are aware of the world around you. Hence the line in Miracle on 34th Street (the original) that Kris told the doctors that Calvin Coolidge was President. (The movie's set in the '50s.) They might have asked it during some of my psych exams over the last, what, six years, but I haven't had one in something like two, so I don't remember. They do ask you to count backward from 100 by sevens, though.

[Tobin Dax]

If you are being hospitalized, which I haven't been, they tend to ask you who is currently President, because it's a good indicator that you are aware of the world around you. Hence the line in Miracle on 34th Street (the original) that Kris told the doctors that Calvin Coolidge was President. (The movie's set in the '50s.) They might have asked it during some of my psych exams over the last, what, six years, but I haven't had one in something like two, so I don't remember. They do ask you to count backward from 100 by sevens, though.
When I had surgery in mid-November, I was asked that question. I took a second to answer, though, because I knew "Obama" wasn't correct yet. Anyhow, from someone who has been hospitalized, Gillian's statement is accurate true.

[SeanF]

I can probably name all the presidents given sufficient time, but I would have no way of knowing when I got them all because I don't know how many there have been now. Come to think of it, at the time of Obama's inauguration, I think I recall the number 47 being mentioned. Apparently Obama used the number in his inaugural speech, and it was mentioned in later discussion on NPR that he'd got it wrong because of Cleveland's in-out-in presidencies. Anyway, it is interesting that I come up with this need for a count of presidents to aid my memory just after agreeing with Neil D. Tyson that counting planets is pointless. Maybe it isn't.
Obama referred to himself as the 44th man to be president, or words to that effect, which is what was wrong. He's the 44th president, but one man was two presidents. :)

Oh, Gillian - I have it on good authority that, even if you live someplace like Georgia, you ought to know who the PM of Canada is. :)

[Gillianren]

Oh, Gillian - I have it on good authority that, even if you live someplace like Georgia, you ought to know who the PM of Canada is. :)

You ought, in my opinion. President of Mexico, too. PM of Great Britain. Probably the current head of the Russian government, whatever Putin is calling himself these days.

[Arneb]

Ah, I see. So where's Old Europe, then? :(

[SeanF]

You ought, in my opinion. President of Mexico, too. PM of Great Britain. Probably the current head of the Russian government, whatever Putin is calling himself these days.
Just for the record, when I made that second statement I thought I was in your "What Everybody Should Know" thread... :whistle:

[Gillianren]

Ah, I see. So where's Old Europe, then? :(

If you are interested in politics, you should know more of them. You should probably know who runs France and Germany. However, I find it hard to keep track of the political machinations of Italy, and the leaders of many European countries have no real impact on the world stage. (I have no idea who runs Lichtenstein--or even Austria.) Indeed, even the leaders of France and Germany are pieces of information you often have to seek out in the US. You will also note that I don't mention needing to know the leaders of countries on any other continent.

[HenrikOlsen]

How to use Google to find information you need and how to recognize misinformation when (not if) you get it as a result of searches.

[Jeff Root]

Henrik,

Did you intend that for the other thread? (Not that it actually matters.)

-- Me, Here

[Noclevername]

Needed: Research skills. Critical analysis. Basic reasoning and logic, and recognizing the limitations thereof. A broad base of knowledge to base all of the above on.

Oh, and re: the OP, the reason the article had such trivial-pursuit questions instead of scientific methodology was that it was written by a reporter, not a scientist. (And yet, shamefully, the answering group still got most of it wrong.)

[Fazor]

Oh, and re: the OP, the reason the article had such trivial-pursuit questions instead of scientific methodology was that it was written by a reporter, not a scientist. (And yet, shamefully, the answering group still got most of it wrong.)

The article says the questions were commissioned by the California Academy of Sciences, and the same questions (plus two) appear on CAoS' webpage. Do you have a specific reference showing that they were written by a reporter? To me, that doesn't appear to be the case.

[Noclevername]

The article says the questions were commissioned by the California Academy of Sciences, and the same questions (plus two) appear on CAoS' webpage. Do you have a specific reference showing that they were written by a reporter? To me, that doesn't appear to be the case.

:doh: Really? I thought for sure they were typical softball questions. Well, maybe the CAoS thought the questions should be easy enough for reporters to understand... :doh:

[Christoast]

on the bright side, we're special becuase we're an enlightened few.

[ineluki]

on the bright side, we're special becuase we're an enlightened few.

We few, we happy few we Band of enlightened Brothers...

[Fazor]

I will say that I got all 6 questions right on the CAoS' website; but I'll admit that I would have had no idea what percentage of our water is freshwater, had I not read the article first.