Scientific Illiteracy

[Womble]

It's going to be down to the kids not paying attention in science lessons, they decry the subject for being boring and switch off.

So it's their own fault for not getting it.

I dunno, I was bored in history class until 11th grade 2nd semester, when, for the first time in my life, I got a history teacher who made history *interesting*. I aced both of his history courses, and still have a rough understanding of what he taught me (history is hard, because it's just a bunch of isolated facts, rather than lines of reasoning). My point being that the specific teacher makes a big difference in whether a student considers a subject boring or not.

That as well as maybe but if there are a group of kids in the lesson hell bent on not learning anything it doesn't really matter how great the teacher is as the kids will trash the lesson.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

The problem is more complicated then that. Every single person in school that I have known until 9th grade (except for 1 or 2 guys perhaps) were completly unable to follow any serious scientific endeavour of any kind even if they had the best teachers in the world, most people just can't understand complex stuff and it is as simple as that.
Scientific educated people are a rarity not the rule, because people whit similar characteristics tend to cluster in life (if you are smart you tend to go to schools where only other people as smart as you atend, and tend to get jobs that other people like you get, there is a correlation between being rational and an atheist and atheist cluster in boards like this) and that will create the apearence that the ratio of rational people is higher then it really is. And only when you try to deal with other people not like you, you realise how stupid the world really is.
The tall guy never sees himself as tall, it is everybody else that are short.

 

[RichardMNixon]

Look on Niocan's page, he's interested in Alchemy...

TROLL.

That's so he can produce new stocks of his precious bodily fluids since the gubmint is ruining his.

 

[obsidianavenger]

The problem is more complicated then that. Every single person in school that I have known until 9th grade (except for 1 or 2 guys perhaps) were completly unable to follow any serious scientific endeavour of any kind even if they had the best teachers in the world, most people just can't understand complex stuff and it is as simple as that.
.

most people are too dumb to understand science? do you realize how arrogant that sounds?

you began your statement with "the problem is more complicated than that" and ended it with "and its as simple as that". lol

apparantly being one of the rare few who are capable of understanding science doesn't provide one with proofreading skillz.

anyhow socrates supposedly lead a slave boy to knowledge, i am sure a trained science teacher can have some effect

One of the best examples of Socrates' mid-wifery is found in Meno, where Socrates, by means of his dialectical method (the asking of a series of related questions in response to the insights into the data already possessed by the subject of the midwifery process), leads an illiterate slave-boy step by step into a demonstration of the Pythagorean theorem. The boy already possesses enough experiential data from which it is possible to construct the theorem; what he lacks is the ability to see an intelligibility in the data, which Socrates helps him to discover.

http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/GrPhil/Socrates.htm

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

most people are too dumb to understand science? do you realize how arrogant that sounds?

I didn't said dumb, they are not dumb, but there is a real limit to how much you can learn and some of them are determinated by genetic factors. It may sound arrogant but it is a well know fact in psychology.
Not all people are capable of persuiting science, I am completly uncapable of persuiting art or literature for instance, it doesn't make me dumb it is just a different cognitive skills.

you began your statement with "the problem is more complicated than that" and ended it with "and its as simple as that". lol

I started by implying that the problem doesn't just limit itself to it's the teachers fault for not taching correctly or the students fault for not paying attention, there are other factors, and then I went to present a personal example for wich the explenation was simple and was not one of the other cases. They were used in 2 different contexts. I recognise that it is my fault for not puting it in a more clear or coerently looking fashion.

apparantly being one of the rare few who are capable of understanding science doesn't provide one with proofreading skillz.

anyhow socrates supposedly lead a slave boy to knowledge, i am sure a trained science teacher can have some effect

One of the best examples of Socrates' mid-wifery is found in Meno, where Socrates, by means of his dialectical method (the asking of a series of related questions in response to the insights into the data already possessed by the subject of the midwifery process), leads an illiterate slave-boy step by step into a demonstration of the Pythagorean theorem. The boy already possesses enough experiential data from which it is possible to construct the theorem; what he lacks is the ability to see an intelligibility in the data, which Socrates helps him to discover.

http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/GrPhil/Socrates.htm

What someone supousedly do to someone specifically is completly irrelevan to the issue, if this was a filosophical question I might have given the trouble of hearing Socrates opinion on the matter, but unfortunatly this is a psychological issue and there are case studies for that. Please see nature versus nurture.

 

[5810Singer]

@Obsidianavenger

I've always used a dialectical method when trying to teach anyone anything, and what I've found is that most people respond to it with hostility.

The verbal response I often get is "I don't want to play your bloody guessing games! Why can't you just tell me the answer?"

I get this in all walks of life, from people of all backgrounds, and of all ages.
It seems from my experience that the majority of people get angry and defensive when they're asked to think along lines that they are unfamiliar with.

I have no explanation for this phenomena, but I have come up against it so often that, for the most part, I have stopped trying to teach anyone anything.

 

[obsidianavenger]

I didn't said dumb, they are not dumb, but there is a real limit to how much you can learn and some of them are determinated by genetic factors. It may sound arrogant but it is a well know fact in psychology.
Not all people are capable of persuiting science, I am completly uncapable of persuiting art or literature for instance, it doesn't make me dumb it is just a different cognitive skills.
.

theres no science gene or art gene.

i will concede that there are some people incapable of understanding science but i hardly think its the majority. maybe not everyone can understand quantum physics, but the newtownian variety is accurate enough and pretty straightforward. its just as likely to me that people put no effort into understanding science because they don't care about it, in fact more likely given their abilities in other areas of life (ie ability to navigate life in modern technological society)

i also think you should note the difference between understanding the basic concepts of science and being a brilliant scientist. probably most people would not be capable of the second.

the fact that our abilities are largely determined by birth doesn't mean that most individuals are much less able than others; at most it implies everyone has a ceiling in their understanding. nowhere does that imply, or even suggest to me that most ceilings are below that necessary to understand basic science.

 

[Giliell]

Wait, there's no flouride added to German water and people still don't understand science..
Oh, wait, most tooth-pastes have it, but you can still get some without.
And using toothpaste WITH flouride didn't stop me from understanding the difference between viruses and bacteria.

:roll:

Well, I think there are several factors:

-A lot of disrespect for science and scientists. We hail footballplayers who're thick as bread, but a good scientist is a Frankenstaein at best

-Too much BS on the media spilling pseudo-scientific facts or misspresenting scientific findings. They will usually exaggerate the results of studies, "inform" in a sensationalist way or simply mislead by focussing on just ONE point of a study. As a result, people are:
-confused (what was healthy last week has turned into poison this week)
- calloused (since they didn't drop dead last time, why worry this time)?

 

[DerGegner]

well

carl sagan's experience as an educator led him to believe that it is possible for people not to be retards

they are so curious when very young but then something happens

idk

I think there is a lot of crap out there, like ufology and people with crackpot claims of free energy who knows what else

I know I was into that stuff when I was younger, fortunately I grew out of it and learned to apply skepticism conscientiously over time

for some it just doesn't happen

 

[scalyblue]

I'd be happy if people learned the scientific method as wholly as they learned how to play dodgeball.

 

[DerGegner]

well physical education is ok, because the mind is a property of the brain which is vascular, so you should be in good health to be of sound mind, especially in old age

PE just shouldn't be as structured

I remember in high school gym class people were having the most fun and probably burning the most calories when they got to pick THEIR OWN activity

like some people really love volleyball and basketball but for the life of me I couldn't do them so I'd play badminton or run on the track

and it was awesome

 

[Aught3]

It's always seemed strange to me how important teachers are to the next generations and yet we pay them so little. Give them a decent wage and we might start to attract and retain some decent educators.

 

[Giliell]

I'd be happy if people learned the scientific method as wholly as they learned how to play dodgeball.

That's true
Looking back at my time in school, we never learned about the scientific method in science.
In science we learned facts and had to believe them since our teacher and the book agreed on them.
The only time I heard about the scientific method in school was in an ethics class when we discussed logic and looked at how Semmelweis found out why the women in one maternity ward were dying by the dozen and the others weren't....

 

[jrparri]

I never had any luck teaching kids anything. They ask me why the sun is bright and warm, and I say "because it's exploding!" and then foolishly await a follow-up question. Instead, I get "uncle JR, why are you so weird? Let's go watch Hannah Montana... "



OT:

I'd be happy if people learned the scientific method as wholly as they learned how to play dodgeball.

I didn't learn the true secret to dodgeball until high school - that the sooner you get eliminated, the longer you have to sit on the bleachers and chat up the dames.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

I personaly have tutored math a physics myself, the kids that I usualy teach are by nature poor in math an physics skills (that is why they call me), it can get frustrating sometimes when you layout the things a easy as it could have possibly be and they can't still solve the problem. I make step by step algoritms (that solves 100% of the kind of problems that they could ever possibly encouter at their level) that I make them decorate (and I show why doing those steps inevitably works) and still they are not able to solve a problem on their own, I have to stay behind them (Me: "what is step 1" Them: "X" Me:"Ok so do X" Them:"do X" Me:"What is the next step?" Them: "Y" Me."then do Y"... and so on) they have the information to solve the problem, they even know how apply that information when prompted but for some reason they can not connect the information that they have to solve the problem whit the solving of the actual problem.

It helps allot if you demonstrate how to apply the information by solving a couple of tipical and generic problems in front of them draging their attention to the important parts (not only to show how to solve but explain why does it work, then clean the why and let the how), it also works greatly to try and change the problem solving methods and see what best adapts to their ways of thinking (i.e. to get what works for them), but ultimatly they will allways need to put their skills into practice and having them trying to solve the problems on their own, and it is only with practice that they are going to consolidate what they have learn and make that ultimatly "click" that is an autonumous skill. The general results is that they are able to improve considerably and become midly good, not because I can teach better and more accuratly then some profetionals (which sometimes is sadly true) but mainly and most importantly because it is a personalized education focused on what works for them (which you don't have much room for in a classroom envioronment), but on the other hand it is also true that many just lack the abbility to become excelent students on such subjects during that year no matter how good you are at explaining the subject.

 

[Abi]

I'd be happy if people learned the scientific method as wholly as they learned how to play dodgeball.

That's true
Looking back at my time in school, we never learned about the scientific method in science.
In science we learned facts and had to believe them since our teacher and the book agreed on them.
The only time I heard about the scientific method in school was in an ethics class when we discussed logic and looked at how Semmelweis found out why the women in one maternity ward were dying by the dozen and the others weren't....

In my experience, they taught us the scientific method until we were absolutely sick with it. They made us memorize the steps if they were multiplication tables, and then proceeded to give us boring "labs" (which were actually 6 page work packets) about it.

 

[Doc.]

It's going to be down to the kids not paying attention in science lessons, they decry the subject for being boring and switch off.

So it's their own fault for not getting it.

I dunno, I was bored in history class until 11th grade 2nd semester, when, for the first time in my life, I got a history teacher who made history *interesting*. I aced both of his history courses, and still have a rough understanding of what he taught me (history is hard, because it's just a bunch of isolated facts, rather than lines of reasoning). My point being that the specific teacher makes a big difference in whether a student considers a subject boring or not.

I strongly disagree. my history teachers where my favourite (lol this is British "favorite"? my opera spellcheck just did that), they were truly best at what they did. History is really interesting and deep if it's taught correctly.

 

[obsidianavenger]

I personaly have tutored math a physics myself, the kids that I usualy teach are by nature poor in math an physics skills (that is why they call me), it can get frustrating sometimes when you layout the things a easy as it could have possibly be and they can't still solve the problem. I make step by step algoritms (that solves 100% of the kind of problems that they could ever possibly encouter at their level) that I make them decorate (and I show why doing those steps inevitably works) and still they are not able to solve a problem on their own, I have to stay behind them (Me: "what is step 1" Them: "X" Me:"Ok so do X" Them:"do X" Me:"What is the next step?" Them: "Y" Me."then do Y"... and so on) they have the information to solve the problem, they even know how apply that information when prompted but for some reason they can not connect the information that they have to solve the problem whit the solving of the actual problem.

It helps allot if you demonstrate how to apply the information by solving a couple of tipical and generic problems in front of them draging their attention to the important parts (not only to show how to solve but explain why does it work, then clean the why and let the how), it also works greatly to try and change the problem solving methods and see what best adapts to their ways of thinking (i.e. to get what works for them), but ultimatly they will allways need to put their skills into practice and having them trying to solve the problems on their own, and it is only with practice that they are going to consolidate what they have learn and make that ultimatly "click" that is an autonumous skill. The general results is that they are able to improve considerably and become midly good, not because I can teach better and more accuratly then some profetionals (which sometimes is sadly true) but mainly and most importantly because it is a personalized education focused on what works for them (which you don't have much room for in a classroom envioronment), but on the other hand it is also true that many just lack the abbility to become excelent students on such subjects during that year no matter how good you are at explaining the subject.

i don't deny that some people cannot grasp the concepts, but the conclusion that scientific illiteracy is rampant because people are dumb is unwarranted given the level of science education in this country. i remember when i was taking AP Bio in high school, my teacher said we had a huge advantage compared to kids in the south and midwest because their teachers refused to teach evolution, or bungled the teaching of it, thus making our comparative scores higher. i am not sure if this is true or not, but given all the controversy it sounds at least plausable. i am guessing with improved education such obvious errors will disappear, but the only way to really know is to improve education.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

i don't deny that some people cannot grasp the concepts, but the conclusion that scientific illiteracy is rampant because people are dumb is unwarranted given the level of science education in this country. i remember when i was taking AP Bio in high school, my teacher said we had a huge advantage compared to kids in the south and midwest because their teachers refused to teach evolution, or bungled the teaching of it, thus making our comparative scores higher. i am not sure if this is true or not, but given all the controversy it sounds at least plausable. i am guessing with improved education such obvious errors will disappear, but the only way to really know is to improve education.

Its a mixture of all factors, they are not illiterate just because teachers are bad, or just because they are unable to learn, or just because they have a limited knowledge absorbtion capability or even because they are not set on a stress free environment that draws their attention somewhere else. Sometimes teachers are bad and you are still able to learn but if you are not whilling to pay attention then you are going to take a hit and generaly you are unwhilling because you were never good at it (which just worstens the problem).
Living in a place where people are not able to teach evolution will make you handicaped, but also if you don't want to learn or you can't.

 

[Womble]

In reality science illiteracy is going to be down to a lot of things. If you think about it we're expecting young, hormone riddled, people to sit down and not pay attention to things that they are interested and listen to some random adult prattle on. Thats not saying that the teachers are random and only ever prattle but that's what it is a portion of the time, at least as far as the kids will be concerned.