25% of Americans think the Sun revolves around the Earth.

The BBQ Pit
81

From the same link as given in the OP. Let’s look at the questions themselves:

No problem with the first two.

Stupid wording. I might have gotten this one wrong if I were reading into it too deeply. Plants don’t produce oxygen atoms; they convernt oxygen-containing molecules into molecular oxygen. “Comes from plants” is at best a phrase suited for grade school kids.

No problems with these, either. I would consider the question about genes a little harder than the rest. I would have had to think about it for a second.

I knew this from working in the drug industry, but I would hardly consider it shameful for the average person not to know this.

A question like this (as well as those about evolution have a political component in that many people understand both sides of the issue but nevertheless choose to support Biblical cosmology. They may even feel it is betraying their belief system to answer otherwise on the test. Hence, the questions are loaded and are not going to reflect accurately people’s real levels of understanding. A better wording would be, “Mainstream science holds that…” or something like that.

Is it just millions or is it actually at least a billion? Also “moving their location” is a subliterate phrase. Poor.

Same deal.

Again, childish and imprecise. Not all lung cancer is caused by smoking, and smoking doesn’t always cause it. “Smoking is a risk factor for cancer and a probable cause for any individual’s case of lung cancer,” etc., would be more correct.

Same deal.

Another stupid question. Why on earth would milk be radioactive? If it were indeed contaminated with radioactivity for some reason (as in a doomsday scenario) yet not enough to make it dangerous to drink (radioactive to what degree?), it may indeed be wise to boil it just in case it was contaminated otherwise.

No problem.

I agree with Bricker that this is poor. “Go around” as a phrase is not the right trigger for the answer they want. They are looking for scientific smarts yet are asking these questions in kiddie language; for that reason one would expect some people to get confused.

Again, using the terms “rotates” and “revolves” as applicable are more likely to trigger the correct memories, as that is how people learn these things in school.

Who knows how they are grading people on these answers? If someone responds, “DNA is Deoxyribonucleic Acid,” does that count? What if they misspell that? I don’t trust these people to grade fairly, frankly.

In short, a pretty rough hodgepodge of questions: some harder, some obviously easy, some with political baggage, and some worded extremely poorly. I think the test makers should examine their own levels of skill and understanding before judging others’ too harshly.

82

:eek: :eek: :eek:

Y’know, it’s not just science (although for some reason in our society it’s considered something to be ghettoized at the nerds’ table) but many other components of what used to be called a “liberal education” (in recent times, at least in the USA, for some reason a degree styled as “Liberal Arts” has come to imply a near total absence of science in the curriculum). People I run into every day are also terrible at basic history and geography and maths.

The thing is, “general knowledge” on “non practical” matters is important in the sense that it helps a citizenry be aware when someone is attempting to feed them a line. It helps you be the person who says, “wait a minute, isn’t that wrong?”

83

We should start a running thread here: Today’s Evidence That Humanity is Still Fucked.

lno, I love your optimism.

I disagree. I find the idea that only 25% or 50% humans are morons quite shocking. If you’d said 85 or 90%, yeah, that’s nothing new.

84

That’s being pretty generous. Anyone who’s looked at the evidence here in even the most cursory fashion and still believes in YEC is incapable of critical thought. Hence, anyone who believes in YEC is either an idiot or ignorant of the evidence. Either way, the questions aren’t unfair.

There’s nothing political about the truth concerning the age of the earth or evolution.

85

Hey now! I’m an MBA. I know perfectly well that sun doesn’t revolve around the earth. It shines out of my boss’s ass!

86

Ignorance is one possibility. But those who deny Evolution, etc., in the face of the evidence aren’t idiots. Fundies have a social system that pretty much requires them to deny it. To call all those people idiots is to underestimate them, and underestimating the enemy is dangerous.

Is the issue fairness or really trying to get a grip on how much science people understand? I would say that this group of questions does a poor job of that.

Of course there is. Because the fundies themselves make it a political issue.

87

Because strontium-90 is processed by the body as a calcium analog, and is present in the milk of animals (and humans) whose food/water supply is contaminated.

Why this is an issue:

88

For male fetuses, it is true, since (in 99.99% of cases) they are genes on the father’s ‘Y’ chromosome.

For female fetuses, though, it is the absence of those ‘Y’ chromosome genes that allows the default gender, female, to manifest. So, in this case it is definitely not “the father’s gene”.

89

What I really want to know is whether these feathers have ever descended to the deepest part of the ocean. And when? Which feathers? For how long?

90

I looked in at the link provided. We need to be careful of in evaluating the usefulness of such studies. Note the participants in the studies (bolding mine).

To decide if this means anything we also need to know what portion of the overall population in each country reaches the final year of secondary school, and what is defined as “secondary school.” Is it the twelfth year of formal schooling, or something else? Have the low-achieving and low-ability students in the respective countries already been moved out to trade schools or the job market?

I’m not saying that anyone is intentionally out to mislead, but it’s important to look at statistics critically and logically.

91

Here in NZ, our tertiary education system is based on the British model. We don’t do any basic or general education as part of a university degree, we specialise from year one - so it is a fair stretch for me to remember science that I did back when I was 15. Not sure how to get around this one - but so far, it hasn’t hindered me (other than previously mentioned Trivial Persuits).

92

This is the important part I think. Most creationists I have met have considered themselves very scientifically aware. However, their level of actual scientific understanding is nil. If there was even a decent level of science education being taught in the schools, then this wouldn’t be an issue.

It is disheartening to see people on this message board questioning knowledge. Science is VERY important. I know it might seem like you don’t use it much in your day to day life but once you start really studying it, you find uses for it everywhere. Even if you don’t use it, the general knowledge is fantastic. Looking at the world once you have begun studying science is looking at a completely different world than one without it.

Thomas Jefferson considered science and liberty linked.

Carl Sagan, in his excellent book Demon-Haunted World which has an entire chapter devoted to explaining why science education is a necessity in our world. I suggest that everyone read it.

93

This is the crux of the issue. If people don’t understand science, they can be fleeced by those who lie. If people understood science and how it worked, there would be no question about teaching evolution. There would be no debate about global warming, and no question about funding alternative energy sources. But since morals are absolute and facts relative to the right in the United States, trying to make our own country a better place and safeguard our children’s future requires constant battle.

Science may not be immediately useful to your job, but it’s become more and more vital to your position as a citizen of the U.S. and the world. An adequate grasp of basic science is absolutely central to understanding many of the political questions of the day.

94

Mtgman: […] but then I started thinking, “You know, that’s really just trivia.” Who cares if the phases of the moon are caused by the Earth’s shadow(common misperception) or by the changing perspective as the sun-side of the moon rotates around the Earth? Who cares if it is the tilt or orbital characteristics which causes the seasons? These things are squarely in the bucket of “Stuff that will never, EVER, have an appreciable impact on your life if you’re ignorant/wrong.”

MelCI: * I personally am highly educated (but not in the science field) and consider myself to be intelligent, however, basic science questions are something that I rarely ask myself. I would have to think very hard about whether the earth revolved around the sun or vice versa.*

Excal: Science may not be immediately useful to your job, but it’s become more and more vital to your position as a citizen of the U.S. and the world. An adequate grasp of basic science is absolutely central to understanding many of the political questions of the day.

Moreover, it’s fundamental for understanding basic physical reality, which I think ought to be considered at least as important as basic literacy and math skills. Think about it: somebody who doesn’t know whether the earth revolves around the sun or vice versa isn’t just missing a random trivia fact. This is a person who (a) doesn’t understand even the most basic notion of what gravity is, (b) doesn’t know that the sun is much, much bigger than the earth, © has no idea how the solar system was formed, or (d) any or all of the above. We’re talking about someone to whom the sun is just Bright Yellow Thing in Sky.

The shallowness and triviality of that person’s mental image of the physical world—far more incomplete than that of the clockless, calendarless Neolithic cavedweller, who at least had some real knowledge of the cycles and patterns of the apparent motions of the heavenly bodies—is, ISTM, just heartbreaking. It’s a deprivation as serious as never reading a poem or never sharing a meal with friends.

Elementary scientific understanding is a fundamentally enriching aspect of life, just as basic literacy or creative arts are. It’s true that basic science is too often taught as though it were just a collection of optional trivia, but it’s not. People who think they can afford to disregard it are tragically limiting their ability to see and understand the world they experience every day.

95

Great post, Kimstu…

But if anyone’s still looking for a practical reason for understanding science:

Charlatans want your money.

96

This dude’s never watched Fox News.

97

What fraction of the population got scammed by that ‘aluminum tubes for nuclear centrifuge’ bullshit, or the CIA’s webpage on the ‘Iraqi mobile bioweapons production facility’? If they’d known a little more about science and technology it would’ve been harder to fool them like that. Now the papers are full of stories about Iran’s ‘nuclear weapons production facilities’.

98

Thankfully, I always wear a Godiva chocolate cross. I threw it and ran like hell.

99

Got any room for one more in your roving band?

I gave up on hope, switched to tequila, and haven’t looked back.

How comfy is your couch, and what kind of beer do you keep in the fridge?

Interseting choice of number. I have a friend who has a theory called 87.9%.

If that many people just disappeared, the world would at least be little different, and probably much better off. He belief in this theory is particularly ardent before the first cup of coffee in the morning, and during rush hour.

100

Well, if we’re getting nitpicky over wording, aren’t both a propaility wave, or other quantum description, which is like a ball, but not quite. The ball an electron is like is unquestionably smaller than the ball the atom is like, but it is a simplification. The wave would be infinite in extent, though with a smaller ‘peaked’ part – I would know what you meant by ‘smaller’ in that context, but I don’t think describing | as smaller than _/_ isn’t sloppy. I’d know the right answer, and say it without thinking, but I couldn’t call the question unarguably correct.

In all media? I know someone discovered something in which light went 30mph, or something – is that necessarily incompatible with sound going faster. Again, I would say without thinking “light is faster than sound”, meaning in air, but a pedant wouldn’t necessarily.