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

The BBQ Pit
141

I wanted to point out that leading in a particular field isn’t necessarily a good thing. I’m not surprised by this ranking, but in my opinion, it’s actually a major issue in the french education system, not an achievment.
For maybe 40 years now, the french education system besides primary school has been revolving around mathematics. For some reason, they beacame the selection factor. I’m not exagerating. You do well in maths, you’ll be put in the best classes, and all the best universities/ tertiary education schools are open to you. You do bad in maths, and your prospects will be severely limited.
For instance, upon entering high school, at 15, students specialize for the 3 years leading to the high school final exam, the “baccalaureat”. There are very important differences between the various “series” in content. Leaving alone the technical “series” (say, admin/accountancy or optics), the noble “general” series are clearly ranked according to their maths content. At the highest of the scale rest the mathematics and science series. At the lowest, the litterature and arts series.

When I was i high school, the choices were clear. If you were a good student, you just had to go to the mathematics and physics section. My mother made a big fuss because I envisionned mathematics and biology (second best). I mean, whether or not you were actually interested in mathematics and sciences. After the most noble “C” series including mathematics, came the “B” series (economics, social sciences…) and finally the “A” series (litterature and foreign languages, arts, litterature and sciences, etc…). With some odd exceptions (who eventually found themselves disadvantaged) , students were sorted in the following way :

-Very best : mathematics and sciences or mathematics and engineering
-Second best : mathematics and biology
-Average : economics/ social sciences
-Not good : all these crapy art/ litterature things
-Really not good : technical series
-Worst : no high school, vocationnal studies instead.

And once again, even kids who had no particular interest in sciences were pressured by parents and teachers to pick the science field if they were any good. It was very clear where the best student were, and where the worst were. It was a hierarchy, not a choice. Passionnated by litterature? Then you know you’ll find yourself with the not that bright or not that interested in school students. And the differences weren’t trivial. I got 9 hours of mathemics/ week (plus physics, chemistry, etc…) while a litterature student might have say 2 hours/week. While I got maybe a couple hours of philosophy (and who took philosophy seriously? It weighted 1/7th of what maths/sciences weighted at the exam. Just not worth bothering), the contray of the litterature student.
Now, what with students who wanted to study languages, or law, or economics at university? It did not matter. They choose the “maths” section, and then switched to economics, or history, or whatever upon entering university. Actually, a tertiary school/ university would pick a mathematics/sciences high school student, for say, its economics section over an economics/social sciences high school student. Because the former had already been selected during high school, and they were likely to be the best ones. The economics student, likely didn’t pick it out of interest but because he couldn’t enter into the maths sections.

It improved slightly since. Mathematics aren’t so much domineering in high school. But mostly, they still are. Students are still selected on the basis of their aptitude in maths. They still receive a lot of math teaching, that, for the wide majority, they’ll never use later, even during their university life. From what I gather here and there, I bet that by the end of high school, I would have known more maths than a 1st or 2nd year american student majoring in sciences.
So, is the high ranking in mathematics in France a result of a better education system? No way. It’s the result of a flawed system which gives to a specific field of study a totally arbitrary, undeserved and counter-productive influence, discouraging people who might have an interest and an aptitude in something else from investing their time in it.
Maybe a little too french-specific to be of much interest in this debate, but it’s a pet peeve of mine. And anyway, it also shows that ranking high in a specific field is no proof of excellence. It’s only proof that maths, or latin (it used to be in France before maths), or economics, or horticulture, or social skills is considered the best thing since sliced bread, for some reason.

142

Same thing in France. When you enter university, or more generally tertiary education, you’re taught essentially only about your chosen field. They generally add some drops of other topics, generally related ones (for instance for a 1st year “structures and matter sciences” student, there might be a little computer sciences and a little english added, or maybe a geology or astronomy option, but 90% of his time is physics, chemistry, physics, maths, maths,chemistry…), but you don’t receive any general education past high school.

143

Yeah, but those that only learn the things that are “practical” in their own lifes, have piss poor analytical skills and no personality, so who cares if they are effective. Sure, who cares about learning things like literature, movie trivia, sports facts, moon phases, basic science, etc, etc. You can be an effective bastard that is single, entirely dull, living along with 6 cats and funky hair, or you can learn crap that has no “real” bearing on life, and have stuff to talk about to other people besides your work.

Your choice, and my choice to make fun of you or judge you accordingly.

144

This kind of thoughts generally comes to my mind when I meet people completely ignorant about history rather than science. I just can’t grasp what the world might look like from the point of view of someone for whom history began when they were born. I often wonder about this, for some reason. There were kings, and then there was WWII, and besides that a great black hole. And there’s now. The current world. It boggles my mind. I couldn’t tell why, but I feel that these people don’t live in the same world I do. Much more so than peope lacking a basic knowledge about sciences.

145

How pathetic. Of course ignorance shouldn’t be looked down upon. Everybody is ignorant of something. Basic knowledge, that stuff we are all taught at school, like the layers of the earth, geography of the area you live in, basic english (or native language), simple mathmatics like addition/subtraction/mutiplication, etc are things that should be known. Not knowing these things, and being aware of not knowing them on an age where there are libraries, internet connections, etc, is what should be looked down upon. You don’t know the phases of the moon? Look them up dumbshit, you obviously have internet connection. You upset because you didn’t know them and feel that you are being targeted in this thread, boo hoo. You looked it up and know it now, right? Get over it.

It’s the willful ignorance of these people that should be looked down upon. The attitude of “its not useful, so there is no point in knowing it.” It is those people that need to be made fun of and chided for their stupidity, not those that realize tey don’t know something basic so they look it up. Not knowing one or two things doesn’t an idiot make, not knowing a wide range of basic crap is, however, extremely stupid. It is a stupid that can be fixed though. It is a stupid that is nothing more than ignorance.

146

I see a straw man popping up here and there and I’d like to stuff a mattress with it real quick. I have never, EVER said someone should ONLY learn things directly applicable to their daily life or vocation. What I have said is that people should be free to follow their own interests and curiosity in what they learn and that their choices as to what to learn about are just as valid as anyone else’s. I have never once defended some idiot who is nothing more than a mechanoid posessing merely the knowledge necessary to feed and clothe themselves and do their job. What I AM saying is that those people should not be held in general contempt(obviously invidivuals are free to make their own judgements, but the weight of those judgements is nothing more than that individual’s opinion) because they have no interest in orbital mechanics or the layers of the Earth. Odds are their interest and curiosity run in different directions.

I don’t know a single person who “restricts themselves to only what they need to know to do their job or live their daily lives and throws every other bit of knowledge in the trash”. I know many, in fact everyone I’ve ever met and this probably applies to those in this thread if you’re honest with yourselves, who know what they need to do their jobs and live their daily lives and SELECTIVELY throw other bits of knowledge in the trash. I can sit in a bar after work hanging out with my co-workers and I’m bombarded with info from all sides. Sports on one TV, news on another, conversations, etc. My personal values determine which I pay attention to and which I don’t. Odds are at the end of the day I’ll come out of the bar with a good grasp of the conversation between my co-workers and myself and bits and pieces of the news. I probably won’t remember a bit of what was happening in the sports world. Undoubtedly there are people who would think I was some sort of idiot for spending an evening exposed to all that info about sports and come out of it with a net gain in sports knowledge of zero. Their judgement bothers me not at all. I know plenty of stuff. I may not know the stuff you consider important, but I know the stuff I consider important and at the end of the day I have to be able to live with myself. You, not so much.

Enjoy,
Steven

147

Here’s a chance to learn something. It’s a logic term called Bifurcation. I won’t look down on you if you choose not to know this thing, even though I think it is pretty important. You obviously know a great many other things, even stuff I don’t know.

Enjoy,
Steven

148

Obviously I know what Hyberbole means, thats ok though, perhaps we both learned something today. Hopefully you wont throw it in the trash. :wink:

149

Bah. I obviously took less away from English classes than I should have. The “those people” in the second sentence above refers to the group of people mentioned in the OP as being ignorant/misinformed about the orbits of the Earth and Sun. It was clear to me when I wrote it, but I realize others do not share my mental context unless I write it down.

Enjoy,
Steven

150

I’m familiar with Hyperbole. I have a cordial dislike for it and my wont is to counter it with Perspective 3(c), a habit which has unfortunately earned me a bit of emnity from Kimstu. That makes me sad :frowning:

Enjoy,
Steven

151

And I and others disagree. Not all perspectives are valid, and not all things are equal. There are poor choices and bad decisions. Not knowing basic crap is a bad choice. Being a backward trogdolyte may seem like a valid lifestyle to you, but you aren’t the arbitrar of what is good and right. Each and every one of us makes that decision, and gasp, ever single person on this planet judges other people.

Choosing not to know things, or to discard them even after learning them is a piss poor choice, and one that IMO and other peoples as well, deserves the derision it has gotten. Hey, you want to be the defender of a bunch of backward ignoramus’ go right ahead, just don’t think you are going to get anybody to agree with you. As bad as it makes me look, I simply don’t care, I see them how they are, ignorant and backward. I don’t feel any better than them mind you, I just judge them like I would judge a drug addict. A fool.

152

So you are saying that one should only pay attention to the things that have a big impact in life? We can’t have disapointment or sadness, or have something annoy us because if it isn’t imporant comparitively to something much greater they should be ignored? We shouldn’t complain about people as a whole being ignorant because there are people dying in Iraq? How about complaining about using massive fonts? Does that pass your perspective meter? How about complaining about drunk teenagers? That important enough to discuss? How about complaining about people at work, your bank, how about discussing the weather? I mean that isn’t very imporant is it? Or is this another “Straw man,” exclusion of middle falacy again, red herring?

Or should we do more of the postmodernistic bullshit and talk about how equal and valid all viewpoints are and that we are all “right” and wrong is relative, etc? If you think the only things that should be discussed on this message board are things that YOU can only say which have sufficient perspective (3c), then you have my emnity too.

153

I may or may not disagree with you. The sticking point, and this has been a theme throughout my posts in this thread, is what counts as “basic crap” and why. There is no published book of “basic crap” that everyone has agreed is required reading. A guy spending one part of one day staring at his classmates cleavage insead of listening to the teacher lecturing about moon phases seems like a perfectly understandable(if indeed the lecture even took place at all, remember educational quality does vary), and common, cause of ignorance of this particular factoid. If ignornace of this one data point makes a person worthy of contempt then you may as well stock up on contempt. Odds are everyone was thinking about boobies or tight asses at some point through their years in basic education is ignorant of at least one factoid out of the “basic crap”. If this is all you need to know about a person to determine if they are a fool then you might as well open a shop which makes dunce caps. We’re all going to need one.

Enjoy,
Steven

On Preview

Nope, not remotely.

Looks like a misunderstanding. The fallacies are deliberate distortions of a position you understand and I think we’ve got a misunderstanding. I’m not sure how to make things more plain than I have in my posts up to this point. I’m not saying I’m the arbiter of what should and should not be discussed. I am saying I reserve the right to step into any thread at any time and interject my own perspective. My persepective in this thread is that it is pretty damn stupid to condemn someone for ignorance of a single factoid. You don’t even know why they were ignorant of it. For all you know they were victims of poor education, or simply blanked on the answer, or overanalyzed it like Bricker. Hell, it could have been an Internet based survey and they misclicked with their mouse. But hey, if you are eager to deal out condemnation and emnity then don’t let me stop you.

154

Mtgman: * I have never, EVER said someone should ONLY learn things directly applicable to their daily life or vocation. *

I have never, ever said that you did say that. However, you certainly do seem to be saying that society shouldn’t make any judgements about what people know except for the stuff that’s “directly applicable to their daily life or vocation”.

You seem to agree that other kinds of knowledge (the kinds that don’t have an immediately practical use) are good, but you’re saying that the only proper criteria to judge them are the personal preferences of individuals. You concede that people are allowed to have their own preferences and prejudices about what knowledge is good, but you reject the idea that society should select some particular subset of that knowledge and expect everybody to know it (except for the immediately practical stuff, that is).

As I said, that implies that society has no business requiring mandatory education to include any “non-essential” knowledge: not just the revolution of the earth around the sun but also art, music, literature, drama, most of science and mathematics, most of philosophy, history, religion, and everything else that isn’t immediately applicable to the demands of everyday life.

That, IMO, is such a drastic impoverishment of universal education that, as I said, I really don’t think we have any common ground on which to argue its validity.

155

I already said that ignorance of a few facts doesn’t ignorant make, right? You didn’t miss that part? Then what are you going on about. I am talking about those that are lacking in many points.

As I see it, it doesn’t matter WHY they are ignorant of the facts. Everything has reasons. There was a reason that drunk guy was driving and hit those kids waiting at the bus stop, there was a reason that guy chopped off all those boys penis’ and stored them in his refrigerator. It doesn’t make it right, or mean it is ok. It just means there are reasons for every action.

Lets say this again: Forgetting or not knowing a few isolated things isn’t something deserving derision. Not knowing basic precepts that everybody in a particular group should know because they are taught it at school is a bad thing, doesn’t matter if they were busy staring at some titties, out smokin pot behind the trash dumpster, or just forgot it. Having a reason doesn’t give excuse.

156

Mtgman: *A guy spending one part of one day staring at his classmates cleavage insead of listening to the teacher lecturing about moon phases seems like a perfectly understandable(if indeed the lecture even took place at all, remember educational quality does vary), and common, cause of ignorance of this particular factoid. […] Odds are everyone was thinking about boobies or tight asses at some point through their years in basic education is ignorant of at least one factoid out of the “basic crap”. […] My persepective in this thread is that it is pretty damn stupid to condemn someone for ignorance of a single factoid. You don’t even know why they were ignorant of it. For all you know they were victims of poor education, or simply blanked on the answer […] *

Well, now you seem to be arguing that it is acceptable for society to require a certain set of “basic crap” that everyone’s expected to know, as long as we’re tolerant of people missing a factoid here and there because we’re only human.

Make up your mind. Are you objecting to mandatory education including “non-essential” knowledge, which is what you seemed to be saying at first? Or are you just objecting to excessive criticism of people who (being only human) didn’t manage to get all that knowledge down perfectly, which is what you now seem to be saying?

157

Oh, and BTW, I am not talking about one isolated internet test. I am talking about the ignorant people that I interact with on a daily basis, like coworkers that don’t know that Oregon is a state of the US, don’t know that muscles are what provide strength, and have no idea about some of the most basic of things. You can go on and on about what you think is common knowledge or what not, but if somebody that lives in US and doesn’t know they 50 states at bare minimum (I can excuse not knowing capitals), as well as ignorant of many other simple facts that are taught to all in grade school, they deserve to be called ignorant.

Again, since you can’t seem to get this through you thick skull, ONE fucking fact or a small handfull of trivia that is missing is NORMAL. NORMAL once again, lacking many of these facts, as well as not even caring, isn’t, and is not what I am talking about. I am sorry you think I judge people based off one fact, but the truth is that I reserve judgement until I get to know a person more. Even some of the Doctors I work with and know have gaps in their knowledge. I REALIZE that this doesn’t make them stupid. I am not talking about them, obviously. Now, get off your soapbox and quit putting words in my mouth.

158

Its always rich to see people lament the lack of critical thinking in others while at the same time speaking of individuals and society as if they were two seperate things.

159

Think of the intelligence of the average person, and realize that half of the people are dumber than that. This NSF survey is scientific data to support this notion :smiley:

160

Where was this survey done?