Are you scientifically literate?

[PLC1]

Reading through the threads on global climate change, evolution, and the 9/11 "conspiracy" got me to wondering: How many HOP posters are scientifically literate? How many Americans in general are?

Let's define the term first:

Someone who is scientifically literate should be able to describe the scientific method. They should be able to describe what elements make up a valid study, and be able to spot one that is not valid and tell why. A valid study that counters their preconceived belief should make them question that belief.

Someone who is scientifically literate should be able to describe how everyday things work. How does flipping a switch turn on an electric light? What is the difference between an incandescent light and a florescent one? How does an airplane fly? How does an internal combustion engine work? What is evolution? What makes up a healthy ecosystem? What makes it rain? What is the difference between an element and a compound? What is radioactivity?

I'm sure there are hundreds of questions like the examples, and probably few could answer them all. A person who is scientifically literate should be able to answer most of them, at least in general terms.

So, how about it? Do you consider yourself scientifically literate? Why? Can you answer the example questions and come up with some of your own?

 

[palerider]

Being a biochemist, I consider myself scientifically literate. And I can look at a study, compare it to observed data and know whether it has merit or not. A study that relies on a simulation that can not even predict the past falls under the not catergory.

Your question represents a circumstantial ad hominem fallacy anyway. What someone's education is or isn't is completely irrelavant to whether any given theory they support of don't is valid. Quite a few climate "scientists" support AGW which is a hoax and their education can never make the theory valid.

If you believe you have something to add to one of the discussions you read other than this particular logical fallacy, why not hop on over?

 

[The Scotsman]

Isn't that all a bit elitist? I mean those who are purely curious about a subject should not be excluded from debating a specific topic should they? Okay taking your global warming as an example; I'm not a climate scientist and have no idea about the algorythms used in the prediction models and have absolutely no idea about the "historical" data used etc etc etc BUT I have a gut feeling based upon what I understand of nature and the planet that its a load of old bollox - so when the boffins are bashing away on their threads should I sit in a corner and STFU or chip in and contribute?

If you believe you have something to add to one of the discussions you read other than this particular logical fallacy, why not hop on over?

...........totally agree!

 

[palerider]

Okay taking your global warming as an example; I'm not a climate scientist and have no idea about the algorythms used in the prediction models and have absolutely no idea about the "historical" data used etc etc etc.

As the climategate facts leak out, it has become apparent that the climate "scientists" have little idea either. Terribly flawed programming, hiding data related to historical climate when it didn't suit their pre determined outcome, etc.

 

[PLC1]

Let's see if we can steer this thread away from (yet another!) discussion of global climate change. We'll know pretty soon whether the science behind it is or is not valid, as local climates do or don't change, as ice caps do or don't continue to melt. None of us is a climatologist, as far as I know anyway.

How about the 9/11 conspiracy? What about evolution? Now, I'm reading that there is a crusade against cell phones, as they are said to cause brain tumors. Scientifically valid? How do you know?

 

[palerider]

Let's see if we can steer this thread away from (yet another!) discussion of global climate change. We'll know pretty soon whether the science behind it is or is not valid, as local climates do or don't change, as ice caps do or don't continue to melt. None of us is a climatologist, as far as I know anyway.

How about the 9/11 conspiracy? What about evolution? Now, I'm reading that there is a crusade against cell phones, as they are said to cause brain tumors. Scientifically valid? How do you know?

The issue isn't whether the climate is changing as the climate has always been changing. The issue is whether or not man has anything to do with it and the science says no while the pseudoscience says yes. Which do you believe?

 

[OldTrapper]

I have a tendency to find science in itself rather boring, and often wonder if we have not gone too far in its exploration such as with the genome code, or invitro fertilization creating "hybrid" humans, and animals. Would appear to me that the curiousity of man has sometimes gotten the best of him, and the end result is we have too much reliance on these "discoveries" for our own good. Sometimes simpler is just better.

I would not say say that some discoveries have been for the better, however, as we gain more technological knowledge we seem to be losing our self reliance; our ingenuity; respect for the common person; and common sense.

Just as one simple example which is going to appear to be "far out" to some. In olden times we used to make our homes, and furniture, out of mostly wood, brick, stone, or of materials natural to the environment. Now it is made of steel, glass, aluminum, plastic, etc. One now asks, "what is wrong with that. It lasts longer." Actually, it doesn't. All of the above materials rust, break, and take energy to manufacture thus adding to the pollution of the atmosphere. Wood, while if taken care of, has lasted well over 100 years in many cases. Actually, it has been the destruction of wooden items that has led to their demise more then anything else.

What is the advantage of using wood you might ask. One is that it is one of our most abundant renewable resources. Another is that it sequesters pollutants such as CO2. It is easily heated, and cooled. The final stage of a wood product, and its waste material, can be used to generate heat, and energy in biomass generators.

While most may think I am completely baffy in this time of "science", I still would prefer the simpler times. And I also think society as a whole would be far better off mentally, and physically, if things were simpler.

 

[Helicitor]

Let's see if we can steer this thread away from (yet another!) discussion of global climate change. We'll know pretty soon whether the science behind it is or is not valid, as local climates do or don't change, as ice caps do or don't continue to melt. None of us is a climatologist, as far as I know anyway.

How about the 9/11 conspiracy? What about evolution? Now, I'm reading that there is a crusade against cell phones, as they are said to cause brain tumors. Scientifically valid? How do you know?

Actually, I am a meteorologist, but I don't specialize in climate. However, I agree we should keep this thread on track.

Science is a useful method used to uncover predicable relationships, usually to further some goal (industry, more than anything). It doesn't have to be completely correct, as long as it's useful. The best example of this is Newton's laws of motion. We now know they are wrong (they don't account for relativity) but we still use them because they're useful and work well for most real life circumstances.

What does it mean to be scientifically literate? It means you understand the strengths and limitations of the method. Often, you can still use uncertain data as long as you can bound the uncertainty (the essence of weather forecasting). Other times, the uncertainty is so large as to preclude drawing any conclusions. Most scientific mistakes come from not understanding when to avoid drawing conclusions. There are often economic pressures to show results (not understanding the value of negative results).

 

[PLC1]

Actually, I am a meteorologist, but I don't specialize in climate. However, I agree we should keep this thread on track.

Science is a useful method used to uncover predicable relationships, usually to further some goal (industry, more than anything). It doesn't have to be completely correct, as long as it's useful. The best example of this is Newton's laws of motion. We now know they are wrong (they don't account for relativity) but we still use them because they're useful and work well for most real life circumstances.

What does it mean to be scientifically literate? It means you understand the strengths and limitations of the method. Often, you can still use uncertain data as long as you can bound the uncertainty (the essence of weather forecasting). Other times, the uncertainty is so large as to preclude drawing any conclusions. Most scientific mistakes come from not understanding when to avoid drawing conclusions. There are often economic pressures to show results (not understanding the value of negative results).

Yes, there are exact sciences, and there are not so exact sciences, like meteorology and medicine. We know that the scientific method can not necessarily give us hard and fast answers to some questions (will it rain tomorrow? Will this pill cure me?) but can be used to give us likelihoods (it will probably rain tomorrow, this pill has cured 80% of ten thousand people who had the same condition you have) and is therefore far superior to non scientific methods (my knee hurts, and when it hurts it always rains/ This herb is said to cure anything).

The popularity of homeopathic medicine is one thing that leads me to believe that scientific literacy is not necessarily universal.

 

[samsara15]

As the climategate facts leak out, it has become apparent that the climate "scientists" have little idea either. Terribly flawed programming, hiding data related to historical climate when it didn't suit their pre determined outcome, etc.

Your own standards seem to rule you out as a critic of climate change.

 

[samsara15]

Eddington demolished the reputation of Lemaitre for proposing the Big Bang theory. Was Eddington unscientific in doing so? Of course he was. Did that make him a practicioner of bad science? In this case, it did, but overall, no. Good Scientists sometimes do bad things. They are human, and they sometimes exhibit bad judgement. Do thousands of them make bad judgements? Perhaps. Consider the ongoing debates over whether or not a comet doomed the dinosaurs.

 

[dogtowner]

Eddington demolished the reputation of Lemaitre for proposing the Big Bang theory. Was Eddington unscientific in doing so? Of course he was. Did that make him a practicioner of bad science? In this case, it did, but overall, no. Good Scientists sometimes do bad things. They are human, and they sometimes exhibit bad judgement. Do thousands of them make bad judgements? Perhaps. Consider the ongoing debates over whether or not a comet doomed the dinosaurs.

that's settled science

 

[Pandora]

that's settled science

That is my favorite Far side

my sec fav is some spiders who made a web at the bottom of a slide
caption says if we pull this off we will eat like kings

 

[dogtowner]

That is my favorite Far side

my sec fav is some spiders who made a web at the bottom of a slide
caption says if we pull this off we will eat like kings

there is one where the dog husband is sitting in a shabby easy chair empty beer cans around with an unhappy dog wife standi g looking at him and he says "you knew when you married me I was a non-working breed."

 

[samsara15]

that's settled science

I stand corrected, with apologies.