# What a good baseline set of knowledge, below which "Scientific Illiteracy" Lurks? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 2, 2011, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-a-good-baseline-set-of-knowledge-below-which-scientific-illiteracy-lurks/601616 "2011-11-02T13:07:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![zoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zoid/32/336_2.png) [@zoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zoid)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2011, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-a-good-baseline-set-of-knowledge-below-which-scientific-illiteracy-lurks/601616/21 "2011-11-02T17:10:56Z")
Correlation vs. causation ---
**Author:** ![Enderw24](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ba9def/32.png) [@Enderw24](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enderw24)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2011, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-a-good-baseline-set-of-knowledge-below-which-scientific-illiteracy-lurks/601616/22 "2011-11-02T17:18:05Z")
I think a lot of responses are good but that pretty much everyone’s overthinking it. We’re talking baseline here. What is it you need to know that will help you to understand everything else about science? I posit that there are two things. One is an understanding of scientific definitions. What is a hypothesis? What is a theory? What is a law? What does it take to move from one to the other? The second is the steps of the scientific method: [ul] [li]Ask a Question [/li][li]Do Background Research [/li][li]Construct a Hypothesis [/li][li]Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment [/li][li]Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion [/li][li]Communicate Your Results[/li][/ul] If you’re arguing with someone who knows nothing about Evolution who knows nothing about Global Warming, who knows nothing about the Big Bang…who knows nothing about nothing but at least is familiar with the two concepts above and accepts them as the way in which scientific knowledge is obtained, you can have a reasonable discussion. If not, you’re spinning your wheels. ---
**Author:** ![Enginerd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/bcef8e/32.png) [@Enginerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enginerd)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2011, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-a-good-baseline-set-of-knowledge-below-which-scientific-illiteracy-lurks/601616/23 "2011-11-02T17:23:55Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I think knowing _how_ to think scientifically is more important than memorizing any particular set of facts. How to recognize bias, how to set aside personal prejudices, how to separate fact from opinion, knowing when not to jump to conclusions-these processes and others should be taught before any facts are memorized, in my opinion. I’m with **Czarcasm** here - understanding the thought processes of scientists and having a basic concept of how science proceeds are much more important than any particular set of facts. The other basic idea that I think is critical is the fact that we (both collectively and individually) don’t know everything. There’s always more to learn, and there are always people who know more than you do and who are studying those problems. If one of those people tells you something that contradicts what you think you “know,” it might be worthwhile to reexamine your own ideas. If the _vast majority_ of those people tell you something that contradicts what you know, then you should definitely reconsider your position. It doesn’t _always_ mean you’re wrong, but that’s the most likely reason for it. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2011, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-a-good-baseline-set-of-knowledge-below-which-scientific-illiteracy-lurks/601616/24 "2011-11-02T18:54:54Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > A reasonable adult should have some grasp of basic concepts, sure, but more importantly, they should have the ability to look for answers to things they don’t know\* in the right places\*. > > My grasp of biology is only 1st-year level, for example, but I know enough to know when and where to look for more info if I need to. My grasp of geology and archaeology are better, but if faced with a PhD question, again, I know where to look. That’s an acquired skill. I want to echo this (and everybody else who emphasized knowing how to acquire information over rote memorization). We live in such a complex world that for everybody, there’s a field in which he is a complete idiot. What I would like to see in people is a recognition of this fact, plus at least a basic grasp of how to alleviate their idiocy, should the need ever arise. I think the human tendency to identify one’s own horizon with the end of all wisdom is the single greatest obstacle standing in the way of achieving scientific literacy. The paradox is that to recognise how little you know about a certain field, you first have to learn a little bit about it in order to fully appreciate the depth of your ignorance – you need to climb the first hill before being able to appreciate the mountains it hid from your view. Thus, the hallmark of true ignorance is an unshakeable belief in one’s own knowledge (as recognised by [Dunning and Kruger](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect)). > [@MrDibble](#): > > But more to the OP’s intent - In my field (with some specifics I think everyone should be able to identify/know about bolded): > I’d expect someone to know basic geology - the mineral/rock distinction, common rock-forming minerals ( **Quartz, Calcite, Feldspar, Amphibole, Pyroxene, Olivine, Mica** ), the sedimentary/igneous/metamorphic rocks in rough outline ( **Sandstone, Limestone, Lava, Shale, Schist, Granite, Chalk** ), the bare facts of plate tectonics and continental drift ( **Pangea** ), an _idea_ of geological time if not any specifics of various ages, fossils & evolution & mass extinctions( **Burgess Shale** , **K-T boundary** , **Ice Age** , **Australopithecus** , **Neanderthal** ), some basic geomorphology like basic river vs aeolian vs glacial vs marine landforms, an idea of geological/physical cycles, like carbon and water cycle. Here, on the other hand, you lost me at ‘mineral-rock distinction’. Though google tells me at least I would’ve guessed right… ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2011, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-a-good-baseline-set-of-knowledge-below-which-scientific-illiteracy-lurks/601616/25 "2011-11-02T19:30:36Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Are you kidding? > > You’ve used about a half-dozen terms I’ve never even heard of – for example, Burgess Shale I think anyone who makes even the least claim to being broadly scientifically educated _should_ be aware of the [Cambrian Explosion](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion). The Burgess is just a shorthand. > [@](#): > > […]Amphibole (that doesn’t even appear on my Firefox spell check, BTW) “Firefox” doesn’t appear in mine…seriously. Neither does amphibole, which is ridiculous, considering it’s _only_ the 5th most common mineral family in the crust. > [@](#): > > , Olivine Only the most common mineral in the upper mantle - maybe you know it better as peridot…but that’s not the point. That list is just a shorthand for “be able to identify the common minerals”, the precise minerals don’t matter, but damn, I’d expect anyone with any scientific curiosity to want to be aware of what makes up the actual planet they’re standing on. Just like I expect them to know F=MA, or the difference between an acid and a base, or the differences between plant and animal cells. So maybe my standards _are_ high. I’m not sorry. > [@](#): > > , and K-T Boundary You’re unaware of the extinction of the dinosaurs? > [@](#): > > . I think your expertise in your field is misleading you as to what is commonly understood or concepts that are reasonably expected of a decently-educated individual. I think you’re confusing the names I used for the concepts they represent. I _don’t_ expect every scientific literate to use the term “K-T Boundary”, I _do_ expect them to know dinosaurs etc were wiped out, probably by an impact event. And this isn’t what I expect to be “commonly understood” - I _expect_ the man on the street to be a scientific illiterate, more’s the pity. This is the standard I expect for someone to be considered scientifically-literate _for the purposes of participating in internet chats_ about e.g evolution or global climate change. If you want to talk to me about evolution, but you don’t know what the Burgess is, then you’re functionally illiterate. Likewise, if you want to talk about GCC, but have no concept of geological time, again, you’re functionally illiterate. It’s like - I don’t participate in CS threads about music when they get technical, because I’m aware that I’m musically illiterate. Same principle applies. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2011, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-a-good-baseline-set-of-knowledge-below-which-scientific-illiteracy-lurks/601616/26 "2011-11-02T19:32:30Z")
> [@treis](#): > > I think you have a ridiculously high expectation for a baseline. I have a degree in Engineering and I don’t recognize half the terms you’ve listed. The ones I do are along the lines of “chalk, the stuff you write with” and “lava, the stuff that’s hot”. So you’re unaware that they’re both rocks, and were formed in different ways? No, I consider that uneducated. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2011, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-a-good-baseline-set-of-knowledge-below-which-scientific-illiteracy-lurks/601616/27 "2011-11-02T19:38:28Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > Here, on the other hand, you lost me at ‘mineral-rock distinction’. Though google tells me at least I would’ve guessed right… I’m extrapolating from Bricker’s example of statistics in the OP. For sure, I’d expect someone to know the difference between a rock and a mineral. I’d expect them to know that the earth has 3 main layers (forgot that one). I’d expect them to know that continents move. I’d expect them to know that the Earth has changed in radical ways since it was formed. hell, I’d even expect them to remember _some_ numbers : 4.54 billion, for a start. ---
**Author:** ![HoboStew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f17d59/32.png) [@HoboStew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HoboStew)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2011, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-a-good-baseline-set-of-knowledge-below-which-scientific-illiteracy-lurks/601616/28 "2011-11-02T19:50:39Z")
This brings to mind Richard Dawkins’ [slamming of the GOP](http://skepgineering.com/2011/08/25/richard-dawkins-op-ed-in-washington-post-slams-rick-perry-and-republican-party/) (specifically Perry). [QUOTE=Richard Dawkins] A politician’s attitude to evolution is perhaps not directly important in itself. It can have unfortunate consequences on education and science policy but, compared to Perry’s and the Tea Party’s pronouncements on other topics such as economics, taxation, history and sexual politics, their ignorance of evolutionary science might be overlooked. Except that a politician’s attitude to evolution, however peripheral it might seem, is a surprisingly apposite litmus test of more general inadequacy. This is because unlike, say, string theory where scientific opinion is genuinely divided, there is about the fact of evolution no doubt at all. Evolution is a fact, as securely established as any in science, and he who denies it betrays woeful ignorance and lack of education, which likely extends to other fields as well. [/quote] I say for simplicity’s sake, evolution sounds like a reasonable line in the sand to draw. ---
**Author:** ![shiftless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9c0ed/32.png) [@shiftless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shiftless)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2011, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-a-good-baseline-set-of-knowledge-below-which-scientific-illiteracy-lurks/601616/29 "2011-11-02T20:46:02Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I think knowing _how_ to think scientifically is more important than memorizing any particular set of facts. How to recognize bias, how to set aside personal prejudices, how to separate fact from opinion, knowing when not to jump to conclusions-these processes and others should be taught before any facts are memorized, in my opinion. Sums it up for me I think. That is why colleges usually require everyone to take a science, because that is where you learn this stuff, assuming it didn’t sink in in hgh school. It doesn’t always sink in in college either. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2011, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-a-good-baseline-set-of-knowledge-below-which-scientific-illiteracy-lurks/601616/30 "2011-11-02T20:55:03Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > And this isn’t what I expect to be “commonly understood” - I _expect_ the man on the street to be a scientific illiterate, more’s the pity. This is the standard I expect for someone to be considered scientifically-literate _for the purposes of participating in internet chats_ about e.g evolution or global climate change. If you want to talk to me about evolution, but you don’t know what the Burgess is, then you’re functionally illiterate. Likewise, if you want to talk about GCC, but have no concept of geological time, again, you’re functionally illiterate. > > It’s like - I don’t participate in CS threads about music when they get technical, because I’m aware that I’m musically illiterate. Same principle applies. I think you are using the term “illiterate” in a way that is far more advanced than is typically understood to mean. For example, a person who is decently read in English literature can surely rap off a few lines, or at least a few words, of Hamlet’s soliloquy. They do not need to have studied English lit to do so, to the point that if asked what the next words of “To be or not to be…” are, most people could answer the question. Not being able to respond with “That is the question” does not make one illiterate. Being unable to comprehend the written word is the definition of illiteracy. In a similar vein, not being conversant with the difference between two types of rock cannot be a reasonable definition of scientific literacy. That is a novel and excessive use of the term “literacy.” ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2011, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-a-good-baseline-set-of-knowledge-below-which-scientific-illiteracy-lurks/601616/31 "2011-11-02T21:59:35Z")
I think basic science literacy starts with “[You don’t use science to show that you’re right, you use science to become right.](http://xkcd.com/701/)”. That said I think people have huge gaps. Today at lunch the subject of the movie 2012 came up. I said it hilariously hooky. Especially the part where the whole thing was cause by neutrinos from the sun heating the core, and prepared to hear some hearty laughs about how crazy that was. All I got was: “What’s a neutrino?” ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2011, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-a-good-baseline-set-of-knowledge-below-which-scientific-illiteracy-lurks/601616/32 "2011-11-02T22:09:11Z")
Like most things, it’s not so much what you know. It’s more important to be aware of what you don’t know. Just spend a little time in any GQ thread concerning genetics here, and it’s amazing what nonsense gets spouted as fact. And how difficult it is to make some people realize they don’t know what they are talking about. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2011, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-a-good-baseline-set-of-knowledge-below-which-scientific-illiteracy-lurks/601616/33 "2011-11-02T22:45:55Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > I think basic science literacy starts with “[You don’t use science to show that you’re right, you use science to become right.](http://xkcd.com/701/)”. > That said I think people have huge gaps. Today at lunch the subject of the movie 2012 came up. I said it hilariously hooky. Especially the part where the whole thing was cause by neutrinos from the sun heating the core, and prepared to hear some hearty laughs about how crazy that was. > > All I got was: “What’s a neutrino?” Well, you’re setting a higher standard than you might think. To expect a laugh, you have to assume they know: 1. A neutrino is a massless subatomic particle that always travels at the speed of light (or faster, never mind that now). 2. Because a neutrino carries no mass, it carries no energy transferable on interaction with another particle (I’m sure it’s more complicated than that, but that’s the gist). 3. A neutrino is almost impossible to detect, because it is highly unlikely to interact with any of the electrons or atomic nuclei it passes by. Therefore, a neutrino can pass through the whole Earth and out the other side without stopping, and almost all neutrinos that come our way do. 4. Because of the above, bombardment with neutrinos (from the Sun or any other source) would not heat the Earth or its Core. How many people who passed high-school physics do you think (1) learned all of that and (2) still remember it and (3) would put it all together in half a second? At any SF convention you could expect a laugh, but those are the guys who not only know why it’s funny to hear Han Solo give a time interval in parsecs, but **care.** Anywhere else . . . ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2011, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-a-good-baseline-set-of-knowledge-below-which-scientific-illiteracy-lurks/601616/34 "2011-11-02T23:21:14Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Well, you’re setting a higher standard than you might think. To expect a laugh, you have to assume they know: > > 1. A neutrino is a massless subatomic particle that always travels at the speed of light (or faster, never mind that now). > > 2. Because a neutrino carries no mass, it carries no energy transferable on interaction with another particle (I’m sure it’s more complicated than that, but that’s the gist). > > 3. A neutrino is almost impossible to detect, because it is highly unlikely to interact with any of the electrons or atomic nuclei it passes by. Therefore, a neutrino can pass through the whole Earth and out the other side without stopping, and almost all neutrinos that come our way do. > > 4. Because of the above, bombardment with neutrinos (from the Sun or any other source) would not heat the Earth or its Core. > > How many people who passed high-school physics do you think (1) learned all of that and (2) still remember it and (3) would put it all together in half a second? At any SF convention you could expect a laugh, but those are the guys who not only know why it’s funny to hear Han Solo give a time interval in parsecs, but **care.** Anywhere else . . . Well I tried to explain it, got the part the where a neutrino is a lepton, realized I was acting like a tool and changed the subject. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2011, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-a-good-baseline-set-of-knowledge-below-which-scientific-illiteracy-lurks/601616/35 "2011-11-02T23:36:51Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > Well I tried to explain it, got the part the where a neutrino is a lepton, realized I was acting like a tool and changed the subject. Hey, I knew all that and **I’m** not sure what a lepton is. [checks Wiki] [Ah.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lepton) Well, at least the gist of it, charged and uncharged leptons, and uncharged (neutrinos) being usually non-interactive, is clear in the first paragraph and if you want to know why you can probably skip to the article index. So. Anyone could do what I just did in five minutes, if you know how – which includes basic reading-for-comprehension skills and basic online resarch skills, but also includes broadly understanding the subject. But, again, how many people meet that standard? ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2011, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-a-good-baseline-set-of-knowledge-below-which-scientific-illiteracy-lurks/601616/36 "2011-11-02T23:47:07Z")
> [@Bartman](#): > > For example here is a list of the core concepts students should learn in 7th and 8th grade according to the Utah education standards: > [INDENT]atmosphere, atom, crust, density, diffusion, gas, liquid, models, mass, matter, molecule, particle, solid, temperature, heat energy, volume, acquired trait, asexual reproduction, genetics, nucleus, organ, organism, osmosis, system, tissue, inherited trait, offspring, sexual reproduction, cytoplasm, diffusion, membrane, chloroplast, cell, cell wall, classification, classification key, kingdom, organism, species, chemical properties, physical properties, chemical change, physical change, reaction, reactants, products, respiration, photosynthesis, temperature, molecules, heat energy, chemical energy, atoms, energy, food web, food chain, photosynthesis, respiration, predator, energy flow, solar energy, chemical energy, mechanical energy, producer, consumer, prey, mutualism, parasitism, competition, environment, capacity, volcano, earthquake, weathering, minerals, fossils, sedimentary, magma, metamorphic, rock cycle, igneous, sedimentation, deposition, geology, paleontology, energy, potential energy, kinetic energy, force, gravity, complex machine, wave, friction, amplitudeand the core concept of each of these words I would consider scientifically illiterate. It’s a pity kids get their head temporarily stuffed with all this stuff and are not taught how to think - to analyze information and competing claims, recognize fallacious arguments and learn the difference between evidence-based knowledge and suppositions based on personal prejudice and testimonials. As I suggested in **BPC** ’s Pit thread, students need dedicated course time from elementary school up through college that’s devoted to encouraging critical thinking. As others have noted, you can look things up if you lack knowledge on a controversial topic. But that effort will likely be useless if you’ve never learned how to think. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2011, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-a-good-baseline-set-of-knowledge-below-which-scientific-illiteracy-lurks/601616/37 "2011-11-02T23:56:58Z")
> [@](#): > > 1. A neutrino is a massless subatomic particle that always travels at the speed of light (or faster, never mind that now). > > 2. Because a neutrino carries no mass, it carries no energy transferable on interaction with another particle (I’m sure it’s more complicated than that, but that’s the gist). Neither of these is true. Neutrinos definitely have mass, almost certainly travel at slower than c, and massless particles can transfer energy just fine (after all, most of the energy transfer from the Sun is via particles that really are massless). ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2011, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-a-good-baseline-set-of-knowledge-below-which-scientific-illiteracy-lurks/601616/38 "2011-11-03T00:09:56Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > So you’re unaware that they’re both rocks, and were formed in different ways? No, I consider that uneducated. Uneducated isn’t “illiterate.” ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2011, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-a-good-baseline-set-of-knowledge-below-which-scientific-illiteracy-lurks/601616/39 "2011-11-03T00:15:33Z")
I think the answer to this question is hard. I think if you are in argument with someone who obviously has more of a background in a subject than you do–as evidenced by the vocabulary they use, the examples they offer, the citations they mention–then you’d do wise to just shut up. I think this is just good advice across the board. It doesn’t matter if the person you are arguing with is not 100% accurate in what THEY are saying. They will still be more correct than you are, more than likely. My father once tried to pull me into an argument about evolution by asking me to describe the tree of life, as scientists now understand it. I told him we could not have the discussion because he was already starting off with a faulty premise and my head was already starting to hurt. Fortunately for the both of us, he didn’t go any further. ---
**Author:** ![thelabdude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dc4da7/32.png) [@thelabdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelabdude)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2011, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-a-good-baseline-set-of-knowledge-below-which-scientific-illiteracy-lurks/601616/40 "2011-11-03T01:11:09Z")
> [@Enderw24](#): > > I think a lot of responses are good but that pretty much everyone’s overthinking it. We’re talking baseline here. What is it you need to know that will help you to understand everything else about science? > > I posit that there are two things. One is an understanding of scientific definitions. What is a hypothesis? What is a theory? What is a law? What does it take to move from one to the other? > > The second is the steps of the scientific method: > > [ul] > [li]Ask a Question [/li][li]Do Background Research [/li][li]Construct a Hypothesis [/li][li]Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment [/li][li]Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion [/li][li]Communicate Your Results[/li][/ul] > > If you’re arguing with someone who knows nothing about Evolution who knows nothing about Global Warming, who knows nothing about the Big Bang…who knows nothing about nothing but at least is familiar with the two concepts above and accepts them as the way in which scientific knowledge is obtained, you can have a reasonable discussion. > > If not, you’re spinning your wheels. Good point. Problems: 1 Science is being taught as a body of facts, subject to the same questions as other bodies of facts. 2 Many practicing scientists don’t even remember that the most reliable information is derived from well designed, controlled studies. 3 Even those that do, often lie to promote political agendas. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-a-good-baseline-set-of-knowledge-below-which-scientific-illiteracy-lurks/601616.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-a-good-baseline-set-of-knowledge-below-which-scientific-illiteracy-lurks/601616.md?page=3)