Are you science savvy?

The question about antibiotics reminds me of something which happened to me. I took my daughter in for chest congestion when she was maybe 5 years old. Nothing earth shaking, but with her asthma and her propensity not to let us know she wasn't feeling well a precautionary measure. Diagnosis: mild common cold which is caused by a virus.

The doc said, 'I suppose I need to write a prescription for antibiotics', and I said ''they don't work against viruses so it's pretty much useless to do that'. He looked at me and said '95% of the people who bring their kids in and hear their kid has a virus demand a prescription for antibiotics. You are very well informed'. That was a stunner; I figured with all the various discussions out there it was common knowledge that antbiotics are useless on viruses but effective on bacterial infections such as pneumonia. But people demand their use, even when they are useless and do more harm than good.

Overuse of antibiotics has led to some of the 'superbugs' that docs have to face now. That's a sample of how dangerous ignorance of the basics of science can be and it's going to come back to bite us hard.

Maybe they just need to write a scrip for a plecebo that sound like an antibiotic for the idiots that demand it. Something that sounds like amoxysyphilis then we just need some fake wiki pages to make it look real. DONE

In reply to EastCoastMojo:

I have considered trying to market Placebix.

alfadriver wrote:

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: In reply to alfadriver: "We've arranged a civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces." --Carl Sagan

Why is that a disaster? I certainly don't see that. You can say the exact same thing about law, and I'm quite sure that many here can't answer similar level law questions, yet we manage to get by. Just because Carl Sagan says it does not mean it's a fact. Tell me a specific example of how it's really going to be a disaster that my neighbor does not know that air is 70% N2?

Oh... I don't know... because when you don't know anything about the law it does not melt down and destroy the habitability of the surrounding area for 10,000 years?

You are an engineer. I am an engineer.

You like Alfas. I like Alfas.

You are a runner. I am a runner.

How are we so far apart on a simple thing like acknowledging that population of the United States and mankind in general would be better off having a solid understanding of all the technology that drives our world? What is the down side to more understanding?

Not just because if no one knows how the magic happens they are vulnerable to fleecing individually... but because it's dangerous to the environment, the economy and the global balance of power to let the people who don't understand anything and cant find good help to sort it out run the joint.

Take a look at how well not knowing how stuff works is going for the remains of the Ottoman Empire. They are throwing rocks at unmanned drones.

Curmudgeon wrote: The nitrogen tire thing is yet another indication of how people get fleeced for not knowing the simple basics, along with copper bracelets to cure arthritis and other cockamamie stuff. 'Nuff said.

you mean I don't have to wear the bracelet any more ?

What ever happened to "The More You Know"?

I wonder how well these people would fare on the test? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw

<--- 12/13 Damn you, nitrogen.

Well, I am certainly in good company with missing the Nitrogen question.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: Oh... I don't know... because when you don't know anything about the law it does not melt down and destroy the habitability of the surrounding area for 10,000 years?

And if these were law questions, they'd probably be something along the lines of: "In a criminal case, the judgement is made by who? A: Lawyers B: A Jury C: A Judge" or "When you are arrested you are required to answer all questions asked you by a police officer. A: True B: False".

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: How are we so far apart on a simple thing like acknowledging that population of the United States and mankind in general would be better off having a solid understanding of all the technology that drives our world? What is the down side to more understanding? Not just because if no one knows how the magic happens they are vulnerable to fleecing individually... but because it's dangerous to the environment, the economy and the global balance of power to let the people who don't understand anything and cant find good help to sort it out run the joint. Take a look at how well not knowing how stuff works is going for the remains of the Ottoman Empire. They are throwing rocks at unmanned drones.

I don't think that anyone is saying there is a down side to knowing about science, just that not knowing much about it isn't the great disaster that it is being made out to be. Most modern conveniences were made so that the user doesn't have to know how it works beyond plugging it in and turning it on. It's not like I'm going to miss breakfast one day because my wife doesn't understand ohm's law well enough to make me toast.
I pay people to know and understand how things happen so I don't have to, just like people pay me do know and do things so they don't have to. It's how our civilization has worked for some time. If something happened and I suddenly needed to know something to survive I am pretty sure that I could do it, along with most people. If nothing else I got the nitrogen question right so I have that going for me.

alfadriver wrote: That makes you better in some way? Come on, Tom- that's nothing about education. Again, there's a difference in knowing science and knowing trivial stuff like much of that. Your example is more about critical thinking- as in- did I have tire problems before this whole N2 thing? No, so it's not a big deal. That's not science.

Of course it doesn't make me better. I was pointing out that general scientific knowledge like this is useful in the real world.

Honestly, if nothing matters except what we need for our daily lives, then what is the point of education in the first place? We learn how to read and do basic math in elementary school, what more do you need, right?

I have observed many times that some drivers have no idea of how basic physics works. Even the most rudimentary of knowledge in this area could save a lot of lives. Maybe that's important?

I think we have taken the concept of specialized knowledge to an undesirable extreme. Too many of us are "specialists" in one narrow field, and complete idiots when it comes to everything else.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: In reply to alfadriver: "We've arranged a civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces." --Carl Sagan I think that about sums it up for me. I can't know the minutia of how every little thing works in ... but I can understand the fundamentals of a wide swath of things in such a way that I can benefit from it. The more people who understand things beyond a user level the more people I can leverage to fill the gaps in my own knowledge when I need to do something beyond my own means. The more people who understand how stuff works - the more people who aren't afraid of making choices involving technological "stuff". Lets use stem cell research as a lightning rod for a second. When no one knows anything beyond "I push button, food comes out" we have given a great amount of power to a small portion of the population. That almost never turns out well.

That is a quote from, I believe, "The Demon-Haunted World_ Science as a Candle in the Dark", which I've read among others.

13/13. I have a passing interest in science and technology.

Moving_Target wrote: That is a quote from, I believe, "The Demon-Haunted World_ Science as a Candle in the Dark", which I've read among others. 13/13.

It is indeed. It's a good read.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

Moving_Target wrote: That is a quote from, I believe, "The Demon-Haunted World_ Science as a Candle in the Dark", which I've read among others. 13/13.

It is indeed. It's a good read.

I'd recommend it (and his other books that I have read) to anyone who shows an interest in this sort of topic. He was a very intelligent and well spoken person. RIP.

I just thought of another real-world application for this kind of general scientific knowledge: Helping my kids with their homework. Having a basic foundation of knowledge makes it much easier to explain a specific thing to a kid. It makes you better at coming up with examples they can relate to.

Another 13 here.

I would love to see the breakdown by age and gender. I'm guessing a few people might have their eyebrows raised by that. I've seen/heard many times that in school girls are now scoring much more highly than boys in math and science so it could surprise a few people of my parents’ generation who still seem to have an ingrained gender bias to see girls/woman outscoring men in this.

As for the question ‘is it important?’ No, the earth won’t come to an end, but I don't feel it's unreasonable to expect the average liberal arts major to get at least 9 or 10 right. Below that and I think you've had your head in the sand, or at least Marcellus shale :) I think a general knowledge of the world around you is important. I recall being utterly horrified nearly 25 years ago when my now ex-wife was in teacher training to be the equivalent of a kinder garden teacher back in England. Some of her fellow students didn't know that the earth went round the sun and that the moon went round the earth. These people were expecting to teach our (well England’s) future generation.

Also I was similarly appalled at a comment I heard Jack Lessenberry on the radio a couple of months ago. For those outside Michigan, Jack is a professor at Wayne State University in Detroit and the state political commentator on our local NPR station. He was lamenting the state of kids coming into university and relayed the story of one bright student who had excellent grades who had come to see him after flunking a paper. I forget the exact details, but the item that stood out most in my mind was that she asked him (no E36 M3ting here) ‘Who we fought in the civil war, I mean I know we were involved, but what other countries did we fight’ And no, don’t try and make an argument that the Confederate states of America were a different country, she had somehow got to university with apparently no clue of her our countries history or even the a basic grasp of the English language. That may be different from a sciences quiz, but I do think we need to have a basic understanding of the world in which we live in.

Without wanting to flounder this up altogether, my opinion (and we all know what they say about those) is that this is an issue with teaching short term to a test, not teaching how to learn and retain knowledge. Every public school teach I know hates the short term view of our current system.

Tom_Spangler wrote: I just thought of another real-world application for this kind of general scientific knowledge: Helping my kids with their homework. Having a basic foundation of knowledge makes it much easier to explain a specific thing to a kid. It makes you better at coming up with examples they can relate to.

It can also act as a gateway for those who want to learn more and be more resistant to charismatic bs artists selling perpetual motion machines.

I've just sent this to my wife and told her I expect her to get 12 or 13, 11 I'm OK with. 10 and we'll survive. 9 or below and I'm having her committed to a loony bin and divorcing her on grounds of being mentally incapable ;)

Man I hope she scores well or it's the couch for me tonight

Adrian_Thompson wrote: I've just sent this to my wife and told her I expect her to get 12 or 13, 11 I'm OK with. 10 and we'll survive. 9 or below and I'm having her committed to a loony bin and divorcing her on grounds of being mentally incapable ;) Man I hope she scores well or it's the couch for me tonight

Rooting for you!!!

The problem with a personal lack of knowledge is that you can be easily and expensively duped into "paying people" a great deal more than is needed or having them take advantage of this trust for their own purposes.

How many electric turbochargers have been sold?

Ever had your fuel electrons magnetically aligned for up to 20% better mileage and power?

Ethanol is a great solution for fuel problems!

Reverse mortgagees are a safe and effective financial tool!

Nitrogen is superior to air in your tires!

The Earth is flat!

Puts a shine on your floors and is a great whipped topping too!

I'm sorry, that is not covered by your policy!

I'm sure you can think of dozens in your own life.

Bruce

Moving_Target wrote:

Adrian_Thompson wrote: I've just sent this to my wife and told her I expect her to get 12 or 13, 11 I'm OK with. 10 and we'll survive. 9 or below and I'm having her committed to a loony bin and divorcing her on grounds of being mentally incapable ;) Man I hope she scores well or it's the couch for me tonight

Rooting for you!!!

12 out of 13, a happy marriage So a professional dog walker with a business degree beat is in the 85%. I can live with that. The one she got wrong was the Nitrogen one which seems common even here.

The real danger I see is that if the average person's knowledge of how things work remains in low ratio to the technology present... they can't make informed decisions. Some of those people become senators, mayors, head of council, supreme court justices.

If they don't have a clue they make bad, silly or unenforceable law.

Lets take a few real world examples:

• Genome patents for discovering nature
• Cloning research
• Computer encryption and security in a era where we have unmanned, weaponized aircraft
• Legislating privacy laws relevant to a world with instant video messaging and affordable storage to retain it
• Plenty more, very serious and detrimental environmental issues
• How about just knowing when it's cool to take a check from a lobbyist or... when you will find yourself on the wrong side of a massive oil spill later in the decade.

The guys who went to law school and became judges will have to understand some of the subtleties of the technology in order to even get their heads around the issues themselves, nevermind make good decisions about what and what isn't appropriate handling and punishment for doing things with it. They need to do that and not stifle progress.

Google "internet copyright law" if you want to see ignorant leaders on a global scale berkeleying things up.

Pay attention to the nonsense that comes out of some lawmakers mouths about well understood natural phenomena and occurrances - then ask yourself if you want the leaders of the "free" world skipping science and biology classes to go to law school. It really isn't about our moms getting by without knowing how to use a smartphone. It is bigger than that.

So I may have been wrong on my gender assumptions, although they only gave overall gender, not ages specific gender answers. It turns out the females only outscored males in 2 out of 13 questions, they were "Which of these is a major concern about the overuse of antibiotics?" and "Which is the better way to determine whether a new drug is effective in treating a disease? If a scientist has a group of 1,000 volunteers with the disease to study, should she... "

There is an absolute correlation to education level though. In every case Some collage outscored HS or less and college grads outscored some collage. No big surprise there.

No immediate correlation across the age brackets up to 64, but for those 65 and over either the baby boomers had E36 M3ty education or Alzheimer’s is rampant. In general that age group scored the lowest.

In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker:

Agreed, and to whatever extent which leaders we get or what legislation they support is actually affected by votes, sufficient understanding to grasp the issues is needed in the populace, not just the leaders.