# 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:** 13\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2011, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-a-good-baseline-set-of-knowledge-below-which-scientific-illiteracy-lurks/601616/101 "2011-11-05T15:05:28Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > You know, I think the existence of gravity is “settled science” at this point. Do you disagree? Could you have selected a worse example? You use the word ‘gravity’, but we still have little knowledge about what it is and how it works. We have a lot of scientists studying gravity. They sure don’t think it is settled science. Gravity is a field of study rather than a body of settled knowledge. We have repeatable experiments and observations, so we know a lot about what gravity isn’t. Scientists still haven’t detected gravitational waves. This is your idea of settled science? > [@](#): > > This is because we pound arithmetic into them until they vomit and wonder why they hate math. They don’t ‘pound’ arithmetic anymore. They let students use calculators and they still don’t understand it. Now we have teachers that don’t understand mathematics. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2011, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-a-good-baseline-set-of-knowledge-below-which-scientific-illiteracy-lurks/601616/102 "2011-11-05T19:38:23Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > Could you have selected a worse example? You use the word ‘gravity’, but we still have little knowledge about what it is and how it works. We have a lot of scientists studying gravity. I said _the existence of gravity._ If you’re going to act dense, this isn’t going to work. > [@](#): > > They don’t ‘pound’ arithmetic anymore. They let students use calculators and they still don’t understand it. This is wrong, and I’m not going to ‘debate’ the facts with you. > [@](#): > > Now we have teachers that don’t understand mathematics. We always have. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2011, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-a-good-baseline-set-of-knowledge-below-which-scientific-illiteracy-lurks/601616/103 "2011-11-05T21:04:36Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > I said _the existence of gravity._ If you’re going to act dense, this isn’t going to work. > > This is wrong, and I’m not going to ‘debate’ the facts with you. If you aren’t willing to ‘debate’ it, then you are in wrong forum. The problem is you picked a bad example and I called you on it. The thing is we have a lot a lot of observations that fall under the heading of gravitational studies. The observations are real science. Slapping a label on it and calling it gravity doesn’t actually add any knowledge. [QUOTE=JoelUpchurch] They don’t ‘pound’ arithmetic anymore. They let students use calculators and they still don’t understand it. [/QUOTE] > [@](#): > > This is wrong, and I’m not going to ‘debate’ the facts with you. [QUOTE=JoelUpchurch] Now we have teachersthat don’t understand mathematics. [/QUOTE] > [@](#): > > We always have. Now you reply with a meaningless statement. What I’m saying is that teaching of mathematics has actually gotten worse in the US, to the point where most of the people who are supposed to be teaching it at the elementary and high school level don’t understand it. There is an active thread on this topic. [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=630330](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=630330) If students don’t get a firm grounding in mathematics, then science education is futile. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2011, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-a-good-baseline-set-of-knowledge-below-which-scientific-illiteracy-lurks/601616/104 "2011-11-06T02:58:13Z")
> [@thelabdude](#): > > Good point. > > Problems: > > 1 Science is being taught as a body of facts, subject to the same questions as other bodies of facts. Two recent science lessons with my third-graders: 1. Students discuss the relationship between soil and roots. I explain that groups are going to dissolve clods of dirt in buckets of water, and then they’ll dissolve clods of dirt that have grass growing in them. I teach them what a prediction is, and how to draw on background knowledge in making a prediction, and explain that it’s okay to make an incorrect prediction, that scientists often learn more from those incorrect predictions. They write their predictions in their journals, perform the experiment, record their observations, and come back for a discussion about what happened. We end with the students’ recording their conclusions: why did the clods with grass take longer to dissolve? Some students suggested explanations other than my preferred one about how roots slow down erosion–e.g., some of the grass-clods were bigger than the plain-dirt-clods. We used their alternate explanations to imagine future experiments. Some students timed their dissolving-clods; we talked about how scientists like to put numbers on things, so that it’s clear what they’re talking about. 2. Students discussed what plants need to survive. I asked them how they could test each theory using classroom supplies (potting soil, a variety of garden seeds, Dixie cups, etc.). When a student suggested testing a plant’s need for sunlight by putting a potted seed in sunlight, I challenged the kid to explain how that would prove anything: if plants don’t need sunlight, the plant might grow anyway. When the experiment was modified to put the plant in darkness instead, I challenged the kid again: what if it was a bum seed that wouldn’t have grown anyway, how do you know it was the lack of sunlight that stopped it? Eventually a bright kid suggested two pots–one in sunlight, one in darkness. I introduced the idea of controlled experiments using this idea, modeled the creation of an experiment testing my theory that plants need cheese to grow, and asked students to work with partners to devise their own controlled experiments. I also explained how a hypothesis works (building on the previous discussion of predictions). Once students had described a reasonably feasible experiment, I gave them the supplies. My class has about thirty Dixie cups full of seeds–half of them under normal conditions, half of them under horrible plant-torture conditions–and students will check on them regularly and record observations. There’s a pretty big movement in schools right now to teach the scientific method through having very young students work as scientists. Yeah, a lot of what they do is sloppy (I’m not asking them to measure the amount of water they give each seedling each day, for example), but the goal is to introduce the scientific method slowly in developmentally appropriate chunks. Sure, kids need to leave school knowing some facts. If my kids leave this unit without being able to talk intelligently about topsoil, erosion, and how plant roots can prevent erosion, I’ll whimper. But it’s more important to me that they understand that experiments generally require controls, that you need to look for confounding variables, that falsifying a hypothesis is exciting, and the like. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2011, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-a-good-baseline-set-of-knowledge-below-which-scientific-illiteracy-lurks/601616/105 "2011-11-06T03:14:57Z")
As for pounding arithmatic, lemme get two things off my chest: -There was a question on a recent standardized test that a lot of my students missed, for certain values of missed. It went something like this: > [@](#): > > **Bricker** drove 341 miles on Monday, and 663 miles on Tuesday. About how many more miles did he drive on Tuesday than on Monday? > a) 300 > b) 400 > c) 500 > d) 1000 Most of my kids answered A. The test, and our math coach, wanted them to answer B, because they should have seen that the numbers were rounded to the nearest hundred, and that they therefore should have rounded Monday’s miles to 300 and Tuesday’s miles to 700 and then subtracted. She wanted me to teach my students to do it that way. I didn’t tell her that that’s what’s wrong with America, but I sure wanted to. She’s the same one who, years ago, would never admit that a test designed to measure student’s ability to discover “the difference between a two-digit number and a multiple of 10” was asking them to perform a subtraction problem like 80-27 or 77-50. She insisted it was asking them to say something like, “Well, the multiple of 10 ends in a zero, and the two-digit number doesn’t.” Again, what’s wrong with America. I love new math. I love Singapore math. I love the philosophy of math pedagogy that emphasizes conceptual understanding of operations. I love telling students, “MATH MAKES SENSE!” and insisting that they understand why something works before they move on. What I don’t always love is who’s teaching it. Okay, I guess that was a hijack. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2011, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-a-good-baseline-set-of-knowledge-below-which-scientific-illiteracy-lurks/601616/106 "2011-11-06T03:25:50Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > I said _the existence of gravity._ If you’re going to act dense, this isn’t going to work. Wouldn’t gravity work better the denser he acts ? ---
**Author:** ![thelabdude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dc4da7/32.png) [@thelabdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelabdude)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2011, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-a-good-baseline-set-of-knowledge-below-which-scientific-illiteracy-lurks/601616/107 "2011-11-06T03:47:58Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Two recent science lessons with my third-graders: > > 1. Students discuss the relationship between soil and roots. I explain that groups are going to dissolve clods of dirt in buckets of water, and then they’ll dissolve clods of dirt that have grass growing in them. I teach them what a prediction is, and how to draw on background knowledge in making a prediction, and explain that it’s okay to make an incorrect prediction, that scientists often learn more from those incorrect predictions. They write their predictions in their journals, perform the experiment, record their observations, and come back for a discussion about what happened. We end with the students’ recording their conclusions: why did the clods with grass take longer to dissolve? Some students suggested explanations other than my preferred one about how roots slow down erosion–e.g., some of the grass-clods were bigger than the plain-dirt-clods. We used their alternate explanations to imagine future experiments. Some students timed their dissolving-clods; we talked about how scientists like to put numbers on things, so that it’s clear what they’re talking about. > > 2. Students discussed what plants need to survive. I asked them how they could test each theory using classroom supplies (potting soil, a variety of garden seeds, Dixie cups, etc.). When a student suggested testing a plant’s need for sunlight by putting a potted seed in sunlight, I challenged the kid to explain how that would prove anything: if plants don’t need sunlight, the plant might grow anyway. When the experiment was modified to put the plant in darkness instead, I challenged the kid again: what if it was a bum seed that wouldn’t have grown anyway, how do you know it was the lack of sunlight that stopped it? Eventually a bright kid suggested two pots–one in sunlight, one in darkness. I introduced the idea of controlled experiments using this idea, modeled the creation of an experiment testing my theory that plants need cheese to grow, and asked students to work with partners to devise their own controlled experiments. I also explained how a hypothesis works (building on the previous discussion of predictions). Once students had described a reasonably feasible experiment, I gave them the supplies. My class has about thirty Dixie cups full of seeds–half of them under normal conditions, half of them under horrible plant-torture conditions–and students will check on them regularly and record observations. > > There’s a pretty big movement in schools right now to teach the scientific method through having very young students work as scientists. Yeah, a lot of what they do is sloppy (I’m not asking them to measure the amount of water they give each seedling each day, for example), but the goal is to introduce the scientific method slowly in developmentally appropriate chunks. > > Sure, kids need to leave school knowing some facts. If my kids leave this unit without being able to talk intelligently about topsoil, erosion, and how plant roots can prevent erosion, I’ll whimper. But it’s more important to me that they understand that experiments generally require controls, that you need to look for confounding variables, that falsifying a hypothesis is exciting, and the like. That much is done wrong doesn’t mean all of it is. Good for you. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2011, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-a-good-baseline-set-of-knowledge-below-which-scientific-illiteracy-lurks/601616/108 "2011-11-06T06:35:46Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > 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. This. Except that it shouldn’t be a separate course standing alone, it should be the bedrock forming the foundation of all learning. My best friend sent her kids to a private school that takes this view. \* The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.\* -Alvin Toffler, futurist and author of The Third Wave Oh, and that’s why language matters: we _ **think** _ in language. Sloppy language = sloppy thinking. ---
**Author:** ![Acid\_Lamp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Acid\_Lamp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acid_Lamp)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2011, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-a-good-baseline-set-of-knowledge-below-which-scientific-illiteracy-lurks/601616/109 "2011-11-06T12:09:25Z")
Mat needs to be taught in terms of concepts and how they apply to real world problems. Abstractions with numbers make little sense to many people, and can frustrate otherwise diligent students. Higher math is the language of science, but is only really needed in extremely advanced problems or to understand physics; _which seems entirely to be all the of type math that nobody can agree upon anyway_. Students need to understand math as a tool to use to help them process, explain, and solve problems. The same kid who will glumly stare at an equation for hours, will often be the same kid who says: “Well why didn’t you say so?” when you tie those numbers to a real problem. The abstraction makes no sense without the problem or demonstration of the application. ---
**Author:** ![gracer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8e7dd6/32.png) [@gracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gracer)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2011, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-a-good-baseline-set-of-knowledge-below-which-scientific-illiteracy-lurks/601616/110 "2011-11-06T18:23:20Z")
As others have mentioned, I think an understanding of underlying principles is far more important than actual words/names/numbers/theories/facts. I think only a very basic understanding of maths, physics, chemistry & biology is required. I would add to this however, that some understanding of language, history, politics, psychology, economics, sociology and anthropology is also absolutely necessary in order to engage in any debate. I probably speak to at least one person a week to whom I need to explain Popper. But very often when speaking to people who seem to have a fair understanding of science (my bar is really low compared to most people here, probably because I would not be able to deal with the disappointment!) I find they have never heard of things like confirmation bias, or cultural relativity, or gender theory. Remember [the letter](http://www.rationalresponders.com/richard_dawkins_letter_to_his_10_year_old_daughter_how_to_warn_your_child_about_this_irrational_world) Richard Dawkins wrote to his 10-year old daughter? I think understanding what he talks about there is probably a good start 🙂 I also think, based on my own experiences with people, that a very, very large part of what is proposed by many of you as “basic knowledge and understanding” is far too much to expect from most people. Getting people to understand those things for a short time in high school is hard enough… I have however done similar experiments to **Left Hand of Dorkness** with kids I have taught, and found that that hugely increased their understanding of the workings of science, which in turn increased their ability to effectively debate & discuss because it helped them evaluate evidence. IMHO it’s ok to not know something, so long as there is an understanding of what you don’t know, an understanding of how you might find out, and an understanding of how you might judge the information you find. I am very aware of how little I know about anything, that’s one of the reasons I come to the SDMB 😃 Sadly: “Gegen der Dummheit kämpfen die Götter selbst vergebens.” - Schiller ---
**Author:** ![tnetennba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tnetennba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tnetennba)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2011, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-a-good-baseline-set-of-knowledge-below-which-scientific-illiteracy-lurks/601616/111 "2011-11-07T02:28:25Z")
I’ll join those saying it has more to do with understanding/respecting scientific inquiry than any particular knowledge. The problem with discussing evolution/global warming/etc. with deniers isn’t their lack of knowledge – some people will have a lot of “knowledge” in the forms of memorized facts and arguments, the nature and importance of which they often don’t get – but that they lack the more fundamental value of seeking answers from evidence instead of arguing essentially from preference. They see science as an ideology because they are so locked into their own way of thinking they can’t conceive of another way, a process to opinion that isn’t ideologically driven. People who have two different epistemological frameworks have no common language. ---
**Author:** ![Galileo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/85e7bf/32.png) [@Galileo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Galileo)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2011, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-a-good-baseline-set-of-knowledge-below-which-scientific-illiteracy-lurks/601616/112 "2011-11-08T18:33:14Z")
I’m going to go against the recent flow of this thread and say that the answer to the OP is not an understanding of scientific principles or of the Scientific Method. From the OP: > [@Bricker](#): > > What is a good baseline for scientific knowledge? That is, what are the set of facts that we would expect a reasonable adult to know? That reasonable adult would know enough to realistically assess his own limitations in a given area. > … > That a reasonable adult should understand the basic layout of the solar system, be aware of galaxies, know that the Earth revolves and rotates, and have a rough order-of-magnitude understanding of the distances between the Earth and her moon, the Sun, and to other stars. It’s clear that the OP is looking for facts. To those who have answered with something about scientific principles, how have you used scientific principles to determine whether the Earth revolves around the Sun? Not “How could you?” but “How have you?” Almost all that we know about science we learned from other people. We typically don’t go around independently discovering scientific facts and we don’t go around verifying everything first-hand. I think that a proper grounding in science provides a solid framework for adding knowledge, and it provides us with guidance in determining which sources are reliable and trustworthy. Also I agree with this: > [@RickJay](#): > > Indeed, the more I think about it, the more I think the concept of “Scientific illiteracy” doesn’t really work. I don’t think the term “literacy” really maps well to a broad understanding of science. > > “Literacy” in the sense of reading is something that can be pretty well defined; we can argue over the precise way of measuring it and where the line is between literate and illiterate, but I think we can generally agree on what we’re aiming at and what more or less constitutes literacy. 99% of all people will clearly be definable as literate or illiterate. If you can read and understand a newspaper, you’re literate. If you can’t read, you’re illiterate. > > But with science, it’s just too broad. If a doctor has an excellent command of biology, chemistry, medicine, and psychology, but he sheepishly admits he’s not sure what causes the phases of the moon, is he scientifically illiterate? The word just doesn’t work as well. If I’m just not real clear on what the liver does, am I scientifically illiterate, even though I have a pretty good grasp of everything else I listed? I mean, in what sense am I crippled by that single flaw in my understanding? If I’m illiterate, I CAN’T READ. If I don’t know how the liver works, but I understand the rest of my list - it just doesn’t make sense to me. Indeed, even the idea of “science” vs. “non-science” is not very useful when it comes to the knowledge that is required to engage in fruitful debate or discussion. Knowledge is interconnected. Some ideas can be supported, some can’t. Who determines what is relevant? Does it matter \*who \*formulated universal gravitation, or natural selection, or relativity? When does science become history? When is it actually philosophy? The [Demarcation problem](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcation_problem) is not as easy as it first seems. ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2011, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-a-good-baseline-set-of-knowledge-below-which-scientific-illiteracy-lurks/601616/113 "2011-11-15T18:42:36Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > If you aren’t willing to ‘debate’ it, then you are in wrong forum. The problem is you picked a bad example and I called you on it. The thing is we have a lot a lot of observations that fall under the heading of gravitational studies. The observations are real science. Slapping a label on it and calling it gravity doesn’t actually add any knowledge. I think you’re falling prey to the problem described in [The Relativity of Wrong](http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm), the idea that because we don’t know everything precisely that we don’t understand it. In the essay, the example is going from thinking that the world is flat, to thinking that it’s a sphere, to thinking that it’s an oblate spheroid, etc. Each of them is wrong in that it does not exactly characterize reality. But some are obviously better than others. Gravity is actually understood phenomenally well. It’s not perfect, and there are bits of the theories that we have that don’t fit together and must in some way be wrong. But the deviation of reality from our theories is smaller than it’s ever been. An understanding of the concept of gravity as it applies to basic scientific literacy is not in any way unresolved or nebulous. I’d say that understanding that science is an iterative process is necessary to basic scientific literacy. I’ve seen way too many people make claims like “Well, they used to say X, and now they say Y. Science doesn’t have any idea what’s going on”. But they’re missing that Y is almost always a refinement of X, and that the entire process approaches a correct understanding as time goes on. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-a-good-baseline-set-of-knowledge-below-which-scientific-illiteracy-lurks/601616.md?page=5)