I like this list.
For the purposes of debate, I think all that’s really required is an understanding of the scientific method. Everything else will take care of itself once a debater is able to objectively assess the other side’s evidence. In other words, pretty much what Ender said.
From a “living in the real world” standpoint, it’s hard to fit what people should know within the 2,500 character limit. It would take me all day.
I alluded earlier to the importance of fallacious thinking contributing to scientific illiteracy.
For a prime example, take the Wall St. Journal’s recent editorial on the Nobel Prize being awarded to Dan Schechtman for work on quasicrystals. Schechtman is cited as an example of the Brave Maverick Scientist challenging established dogma and being ridiculed for his beliefs:
*"Today, Mr. Shechtman’s observations have been fully validated and quasicrystals are beginning to have commercial applications. But his story is a reminder that a consensus of scientists is no substitute for, and often a bar to, great science. That’s especially so when the consensus hardens into a dogmatic and self-satisfied enterprise.
Isn’t there another field in which a similar kind of consensus has taken hold, with similarly unpleasant consequences for those who question its core assumptions? Take a guess."*
Yes kiddies, it’s consensus on climate change which the WSJ is attacking. But their view could apply to any issue with important public policy implications, such as vaccination or water fluoridation. It doesn’t matter if there’s only a tiny minority of doubters, their expertise is lacking or irrelevant, or if their claims are not based on good evidence. We mustn’t act on any widely-held scientific consensus if we don’t like what the evidence shows, because, you know, they once laughed at Galileo (this fallacy is also known as the Galileo gambit).
By the same token, since there is a small but loud continent of AIDS denialists (including a Nobel Prize winner), we presumably should not give anti-retroviral drugs or engage in efforts to control spread of HIV because denialists claim that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS. Never mind the overwhelming consensus on the issue, consensus is a bar to great science, at least if you believe the Wall St. Journal.
This is the kind of scientific illiteracy we need most to overcome.
All of the ones I know would be.
Now, granted, most of them are earth science PhDs, which, by their nature, are more eclectic than a “pure” physics or whatever PhD, but even the cosmologist and mathematician PhDs I know are at least conversant with stuff like basic evolutionary theory, the core-mantle-crust structure, what the kidneys do, stuff like that. I don’t know any PhDs who are so monomaniacal that they don’t have an interest in other parts of science. Hell, you pick up a bit just going through Nature or Scientific American, which almost everyone I know does.
Oh, I don’t doubt it. But then I never claimed my standard was descriptive. It isn’t, it’s an ideal.
How so? Getting a PhD makes you a working scientist in a particular field, it doesn’t suddenly render you an expert in “Science!” like some bad TV scientist.
So I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of PhDs turned out not to be conversant in science as a whole. I’d be saddened, but not surprised. Just like I’m a little saddened when a working scientist, in any field, turns out to be a creationist or a global warming denier.
But the OP wasn’t prescriptive - it wasn’t “what is the current baseline”, it was “what is a good baseline”, and I’m elaborating on what I consider that to be. And fuck, I don’t see how knowing sandstone is different from granite is such a high standard to ask of an educated person. It’s crap I learned in primary school, for Hastur’s sake. I’d know it even if I’d stuck with English Lit. at varsity rather than geology. It’s “Insects have 6 legs, spiders have 8”-level basics.
I think people are talking past each other because what Mr. Dibble said in his first post is not at all the same as knowing that the crust exists.
The crust is the best part. I never understood people who cut it off.
One essential is realizing what you don’t have a clue about. If you can recognize those areas and stay out of them, that goes a long ways.
Galactus, the Devourer of Worlds posts here?
Holmes – that is, Doyle – grossly underestimated the capacity of the human mind to store and recall and correlate information.
There’s a certain set of basic scientific knowledge that people need to understand in order to even grasp the most basic concepts, and I’m not convinced most people even really have that.
For example, in my experience, once you get past the religious BS surrounding the people who argue against evolution, you realize that what’s clouding their thoughts here tends to be an inability to conceive of just how many years this takes place over.
In other words, they don’t have a good concept of a hundred thousand, much less a million, or a billion, and without a proper concept of the time involved, evolution doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
Similarly, someone who doesn’t understand atoms vs. molecules vs. mixtures vs. solutions isn’t going to grasp that some sort of magnetic contraption isn’t going to make water healthier or gasoline burn more efficiently. It’ll sound like science to them, and they’ll go with it.
For example:
http://www.aquatechnology.net/hexagonalwater.html
I’m not a scientist, but the only water structure I’ve ever heard of is the crystalline structure you get when it freezes. Otherwise, it’s a liquid.
But that website looks like it knows what it’s talking about; so people assume that it’s true, and spend $$$ on what amounts to normal water.
It sounds like a sensationalist article that’s trying to say that scientists shouldn’t always go with the accepted thinking on things.
It’s hard to argue with freedom of thought and original thinking, but take it too far, and you have flat-earthers and AIDS denialists.
There are a few errors in Acid Lamp’s post.
[ul]
[li]The Earth is not “many” billions of years old, unless “many” refers to a quantity of less than five.[/li][li]Plants do not make energy through photosynthesis and animals do not produce energy through the digestion of food.[/li][li]Science is not a process by which we confirm facts or evidence.[/li][/ul]Also, there are a few nit-picky errors, which I’ll leave for now. (Actually, I’ll mention one: The Solar System does not orbit the Sun.)
I think that RickJay’s post is better. Just a few things missing, as he acknowledged.
A basic understanding of:
Atomic structure.
Radiation, fission and fusion.
The main classes of inorganic and organic compounds.
The components of nutrition.
How traits are inherited.
How drugs work.
Also, a conceptual understanding of relativity and quantum mechanics. (And, knowing the limits of that understanding.)
In mathematics: a basic understanding of probability (yeah, implied by the mention of Statistics but a distinct area on its own), exponents and logarithms, and at least a conceptual understanding of calculus and trigonometry.
See, I’d vehemently disagree that a lack of a basic understanding of calculus, or the main classes of organic and inorganic compounds, constitutes “baseline” knowledge. I really don’t think a person is ignorant if they can’t figure out the derivative of f(x)=5x^7+5x, which is absolutely bedrock-fundamental calculus. But if they can’t solve 50=8X+10, that’s ignorant.
Generall speaking, I think the fundamental level of scientific literacy is reached when you learn the key things taught somewhere between seventh and tenth grade. As has been pointed out you might not remember all the details, like everything that can be found inside a cell, but if you know basically that animals are made out of cells, and a few basic things about them, you’re good to go. Calculus isn’t a tenth grade sport. 
But we can quibble over the details all day.
What I love are medical doctors that think they are experts on everything else. I used to attend a church full of them and they made a bunch of dumb decisions on upkeep of the building and their wives were even worse. Total illiterates.
Basic scientific literacy.
People do not need to understand the intricacies of energy exchange to have a basic understanding that animals need to consume food while plants utilize a different process. If you are just taking a shot at conservation of energy, you need to get your head out of a book for a while. It is enough to understand how living things convert fuel into a useable for of energy.
It is not? That’s news to me. The scientific process is pretty much the only way we can confirm facts. Unless you are going in the direction of “we can never be entirely certain etc…”, and that is beyond a basic understanding.
Um, I’m fairly certain that the planets orbit the sun. I’ll grant that their moons etc.. orbit the planets themselves but that is more intricate and pedantic than a gloss understanding need be. It is also implied that if you understand the the moon orbits us, other planets’ moons orbit them. Remember we are striving to set a basic level for being scientifically literate, below which makes you about as knowledgeable as your average dark-age peasant.
I think that most of your suggestions are rather advanced and specialized areas of study, (though nutrition is a good one), that most people would be rather hard pressed to elaborate on in any depth.
Oh, and feel free to substitute “several” for “many” if it makes you feel better, sheesh.
That’s quite different from saying that plants make energy through photosynthesis and animals produce energy through digestion.
Look, you made a mistake. It happens.
If you say so.
In your previous post, you didn’t say that* the planets *orbit the Sun – you said that “our solar system” orbits the Sun. The Solar System includes the Sun. I know what you meant, but you were still wrong. And, I did say that it was a nitpick. FWIW, RickJay got it right.
Anyway, I won’t get into the other small errors in your post. I’ll just say that you could have been more precise while still keeping your points at a basic level of understanding.
Heh, I thought Amphibole was the goddess of frogs.
Radical pacifist who considered American Cold War policy eviller than that of Nazi Germany’s.
I said a “conceptual understanding” of calculus, meaning that differentiation has something to do with the slope of a equation and integration has something to do with area, and that calculus is used in many scientific concepts. To me, this is similar to not knowing any of the rules of baseball but knowing that it’s a popular sport where some guys play with a bat and ball and bases on a field.
As for the main classes of compounds, I’m just talking about things like knowing that it’s the sugar (carbohydrate) in grapes that turns into alcohol to create wine, and the alcohol can turn into vinegar (acid), and it will react with baking soda (base). Is knowing about proteins and lipids any more difficult or esoteric than understanding how light and sound work? (Your example.)
I’d move it up a year or two. But, yup, we can quibble over the details all day. 