The good news: America's science literacy rate is up from a pathetic 10 percent in 1988. The bad news: it's still only 28 percent.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
"Ignorance feeds on ignorance." - Carl Sagan
Let's start by focusing on the positive. In just 17 years, over 50 million people have been added to the rolls of Americans who can understand a newspaper story about science or technology, according to findings presented last weekend at the American Academy for the Advancement of Science's annual meeting in San Francisco.
Michigan State University political scientist Jon D. Miller, who conducted the study, attributed some of the increase in science literacy to colleges, many of which in recent years have required that students take at least one science course. Miller says people have also added to their understanding through informal learning: reading articles and watching science reports on television.
Okay, now let's talk (dare I say rant?) about the 200 million Americans out there who cannot read a simple story in, say, Technology Review or the New York Times science section and understand even the basics of DNA or microchips or global warming.
This level of science illiteracy may explain why over 40 percent of Americans do not believe in evolution and about 20 percent, when asked if the earth orbits the sun or vice versa, say it's the sun that does the orbiting--placing these people in the same camp as the Inquisition that punished Galileo almost 400 years ago. It also explains the extraordinary disconnect between scientists and much of the public over issues the scientists think were settled long ago--never mind newer discoveries and research on topics such as the use of chimeras to study cancer, or pills that may extend life span by 30 or 40 percent.
As Carl Sagan eloquently wrote in The Demon-Haunted World, ignorance reigns in our society at a moment when science is on the cusp of doing amazing and wonderful things, but also dangerous things. Ignorance, said Sagan, is not an option.
Indeed, given that we live in a culture based on science and technology, this situation is dangerous. It conjures the specter of a society in which a cadre of elites knows and understands the essentials of the science that underpins our civilization, while everyone else uses and depends on that science without having a clue. This scenario is troubling in a democracy that assumes a baseline of citizen knowledge. The outcome could be that the illiterates become so fearful of science and technology, so resentful of the exalted position of the elites, that they try to slow down the progress of science, or stop it altogether. Or the opposite could happen: the scientifically elite may grow frustrated with the illiterates and try to co-opt or even control them.
The forces of ignorance have squelched science across history, from the mob in ancient Alexandria, which chased the astronomer Aristarchus out of town for suggesting that the earth moved around the sun, to the present restrictions on federal funding for embryonic-stem-cell research.
Elites' exploiting their scientific knowledge for power is also not new. Mayan elites, for instance, used their extraordinary knowledge of mathematics, engineering, and astronomy to build great cities and temples--and sumptuous palaces for themselves--and to awe and control the masses through a religion that included ripping the hearts out of sacrificial victims. Europeans during the colonial era leveraged their advanced guns and ships into global empires at the expense of so-called "ignorant savages."
One of Miller's findings that may surprise many Americans is that Europeans and Japanese actually rate slightly lower in science literacy. To be sure, these same populations also have a much higher percentage of people who accept evolution and other basic scientific theories. America's large population of conservative religious believers may be one reason for this discrepancy, although clearly there are hundreds of millions of people in the developed world who need education.
Perhaps we should launch a scientific literacy campaign like the mid-20th-century drive that nearly tripled the rate of basic literacy worldwide. The question is, does the public really want to know how gadgets run and how organisms work? And are scientists and those who control scientific knowledge willing to share--that is, to take the time, and perhaps give up some of their influence and access to knowledge?
In other words, is this seemingly global dilemma of science illiteracy fixable or not?
In the next few days look for:
Part II: What is the media's role in science illiteracy?
Part III: Are scientists helping or hindering science literacy?
Comments
jsessex on 02/21/2007 at 5:08 PM
12
bmn on 02/22/2007 at 7:18 AM
25
collin on 02/22/2007 at 1:27 PM
1
I feel you are painting a poor image of the scientific drive and community.
If some journal published a reviewed article which could show evidence to support a change in the current theory or a replacement of it it would be thought about carefully, challenged, tested again if it seemed valid.
Trouble is, current theory is most loudly contested outside the scientific process. And without any new discoveries to put on the table.
The response only seems dogmatic, it's just a good filter.
jmaximus9 on 02/22/2007 at 10:01 PM
47
Jesus_Christ on 02/23/2007 at 1:54 AM
1
FYI, evolution happens and there is nothing you can do about it, except breed and encourage your progeny to do the same (from a moral standpoint I don't necessarily recommend this);
global warming is happening. There are a number of things we can do to alter its course, and in the end natural cycles such as carbonate weathering or the precession of the equinoxes may intervene on the side of humanity (but I wouldn't count on it).
Stem cells are neat. That's all scientists care about. There is no "scientific mafia". There are ambitious scientists to be sure, but basically scientists just try to learn new things and make a buck doing it if possible. History would suggest they are generally good for the economy (e.g, electromagnetism, the internet) even if most of them seem to be engaged in pretty esoteric activities.
spincycle on 02/26/2007 at 3:54 AM
1
leolva on 02/26/2007 at 10:53 AM
3
Evolution does not "just happen". You have to define it and think the whole thought through.
To give you an example, when Darwin first came up with his theory, he made a mistake. His theory was a tautology (it contained circular thinking).
It went something like this:
Theory: Evolution is the survival of the fittest.
Question: Who are the fittest?
Answer: The most likely to survive.
Question: And who is most likely to survive?
Answer: The fittest.
Question: So, who are the fittest?
Answer: The most likely to survive.
And so on…
Even Darwin’s theory was flawed (at least at first; he went on to fixing it). Nothing (that we know about through science) just happens. Theories must be sustained by empirical evidence that shows that they are useful. If a better model comes up to describe how species change over time, then we should have it substitute our current theory of evolution.
gabrielg01 on 02/21/2007 at 6:12 PM
317
bmn on 02/22/2007 at 7:25 AM
25
TFlan on 02/22/2007 at 5:04 PM
1
gabrielg01 on 02/22/2007 at 5:24 PM
317
They support innovation and progress in many other ways: funding, regulation, creating a marketplace, and providing crucial feedback.
bassmang5 on 02/21/2007 at 10:29 PM
6
immortal_2007 on 02/22/2007 at 4:20 PM
1
bassmang5 on 02/27/2007 at 9:15 PM
6
wtstms on 02/22/2007 at 4:40 PM
1
gabrielg01 on 02/22/2007 at 5:40 PM
317
..."A pure scientist would have no qualms over killing anyone or anything in order to get results. The only thing that holds a person back is a belief in someone or something."...
This is the voice of religious zealots who cannot accept/see any other view than the one through prism of religion and their own type of morality. There is a huge number of scientists who do not *believe* in anything, in the religious sense of the word.
And one more thing - "theories" mirror facts; theories are not imaginary things. Of course, there is often a gap, or a misalignment between the theory and the facts. But this in itself is the engine of progress, that drives us to understand the unknowns.
Daveed on 02/22/2007 at 9:44 PM
1
jmaximus9 on 02/22/2007 at 10:09 PM
47
thelawof3 on 02/23/2007 at 1:09 AM
1
To me the biggest tragedy is that so many of our youth are being denied access to the scientific method and are being forced to accept things based on faith or pure speculation. If you have a problem with any scientific conjecture, please use empicial evidence to back yourself up.
Cerin on 02/26/2007 at 11:47 AM
3
God didn't invent that computer you're using to troll this message board. Science did. And remember, the basis for the culture most people prescribe to is defined in the Constitution, which is strangely absent of any mention of "God" or "a very healthy dose of belief".
Jorge on 02/22/2007 at 4:55 PM
1
Read the damn Kitzmiller opinion.
http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf
jmaximus9 on 02/22/2007 at 9:47 PM
47
Religion [or stupidity as I call it] is given all sorts of special privileges in our country, i.e. Churches don't have to pay most taxes, but are under no obligation to actually help anybody [except to help people lighten their wallets]. Swindlers like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Peter Popoff belong in jail for being bunko artists, but instead are revered by their dupes. Pedophile Catholic priests are still treated like respected saints. Name a war, any war and religion probably has something to do with it, take Iraq for example.
Ask a Christian “How is it we see stars in the sky if the universe is only 6,000 years old and most stars are millions or billions of light years away?” They will give you some inane answer like “God works in mysterious ways!”
So am I surprised that 216 Million Americans Are Scientifically Illiterate? No.
Steve on 02/22/2007 at 11:09 PM
5
This statement seems to imply that there is no God, and that any truly scientifically literate person would accept that idea.
I find that attitude to be very unscientific. I am curious to see the scientific proof that there is no God. Please note that I am not asking for a logical refutation of a religion or its doctrine. That would be much too easy, and quite beside the point. I am asking for the scientific proof that there is no “supreme being”.
While you’re looking for that proof, please don’t be tempted to suggest that God cannot exist "because nobody has scientifically proven God’s existence". Instead, try to remember the following basic tenet of logic:
The absence of proof does not constitute proof of absence.
Without scientific proof of God's non-existence, we must conclude that not only is ‘religion’ based on ‘belief’, Atheism is also based on ‘belief’, not science. Thus the only scientifically supported position is Agnosticism, in which people accept that there is not enough scientific evidence to ‘know’ whether God exists.
Interestingly, many people are scientifically Agnostic (accepting there is no 'scientific' proof of God), and yet still ‘believe’ there is a God (or isn’t) because of their interpretation of their life experiences. It is not irrational to ‘know’ a limit, but ‘believe’ what lies beyond that limit.
blony on 02/23/2007 at 6:19 AM
1
In other words, it is an argument that 'belief' is different from the acquisition, self-correcting, refinement and application of information that distinguishes the practice of science.
Belief is more akin to 'faith' in that it may well have nothing whatsoever to do with physical reality. A competent scientist understands full well he or she is incompetent to prove or disprove (test) hypotheses regarding god(s) and well understands the difference between 'feeling' and 'thinking'.
A scientist who accepts religious metaphysics as the basis of a deeply held belief system has simply surrendered a dimension of his or her existence to the witch-doctors in a domain which science has not yet illuminated and, perhaps, never will.
That said, the shadowy horizon that enables the metaphysics of religion continues to move outward.
As the ignorance that enables anyone to get away with professing belief in anything without fear of rebuttal shrinks and one element of dogma after another is revealed to be nonsense, science is perceived as an enemy of organized religion.
The appropriate answer to whether there is/are god(s) is very different from 'belief' that there is/are or is/are-not: It remains an open question. A rigorously practicing scientist may have hypotheses regarding a domain of open questions but cannot have 'beliefs' regarding them without forfeiting his/her psychic integrity.
For some, it simply doesn't matter whether they 'believe' in the domain of religious 'faith' because it is a region where they are only competent to 'feel' - and are 'safe' from rebuttal about what/how they 'feel'. i.e., in the absense of the means to acquire/refine/correct information, one 'belief' is as good as another.
That zone, too, is eroding. Many religions have rebutted eachother and many have gone the way of the donosaurs. The Christian is the Muslim's infidel and vice-versa. If one applies science to the domain of the various 'faiths', the great diversities of 'beliefs' that have existed over time and to this day - and their cumulative effects, including those of oppression and contention between them coupled with the increased awareness of the nonsense at the roots of most of them, a very healthy skepticism regarding the metaphysics of organized religions must ensue. The evidence suggests that people, in general, are capable of 'faith' in almost anything at all - to the point of violent hysteria. The evidence suggests that this is not a 'good' thing. While there are positive effects of communal emotional states and evolved principles that are encoded in religious doctrine, it would be far better to have reason-based philosophy and laws to protect people from eachother and unite them in overcoming actual threats to survival in the real world - instead of contorting them into threats to eachother's survival in the murky world of animal emotive systems tempered inadequately, as yet, by reason. We are still evolving.
A scientist making statements about what he/she does or doesn't 'believe' is often speaking of a psychic domain different from that in which he or she 'thinks'. It is in the latter that he or she practices and applies science. A scientist who practices and applies science across all domains does not 'believe' anything in the sense of faith-based religious 'belief'. The skepticism and critical thinking necessary to the integrity of science simply preclude 'belief' without evidence. Comfort with and enthusiasm for the challenge of mining the darkness of ignorance for gems of validated information are the hallmark of science. Open questions are the raw material of science and are highly treasured.
Steve on 02/25/2007 at 1:44 PM
5
I'm not convinced that the lack of scientific rigor, in those areas where such rigor is currently impossible, is always bad. While there are many circumstances where a lack of scientific rigor can have negative consequences, we've also made a lot of progress on the back of intuition, hope, and gut feelings that happen outside the conscious intellectual space of scientific rigor. Perhaps the real trick is to know which approach deserves the most weight in each specific situation.
jmaximus9 on 02/26/2007 at 9:06 AM
47
Ok..I say I am the ruler of Jupiter and all its moons. The gas people there know me as Lord Jmaximus, the creator. You have no proof otherwise, so by your logic it must be true!
The absence of proof means just that, no proof.
Steve on 02/26/2007 at 9:42 PM
5
You can’t prove non-existence solely by showing that there is no proof of existence. Prior to the first measurements of radio waves, nobody could prove their existence. But our inability to prove their existence didn’t stop radio waves from bouncing all around the universe did it? The absence of proof does not constitute proof of absence. This is simple logic, not belief or faith.
Since there is no current scientific proof that God does or doesn’t exist, we have to leave it an open question, scientifically speaking. All other positions, including Atheism, are based on belief without proof.
Cerin on 02/26/2007 at 11:20 AM
3
This statement seems to imply that there is no pink unicorn, and that any truly scientifically literate person would accept that idea.
I find that attitude to be very unscientific. I am curious to see the scientific proof that there is no pink unicorn. Please note that I am not asking for a logical refutation of a religion or its doctrine. That would be much too easy, and quite beside the point. I am asking for the scientific proof that there is no “pink unicorn”.
While you’re looking for that proof, please don’t be tempted to suggest that the pink unicorn cannot exist "because nobody has scientifically proven the pink unicorn’s existence". Instead, try to remember the following basic tenet of logic:
The absence of proof does not constitute proof of absence.
Without scientific proof of the pink unicorn's non-existence, we must conclude that not only is ‘religion’ based on ‘belief’, Atheism is also based on ‘belief’, not science. Thus the only scientifically supported position is Agnosticism, in which people accept that there is not enough scientific evidence to ‘know’ whether pink unicorns exists.
Interestingly, many people are scientifically Agnostic (accepting there is no 'scientific' proof of pink unicorns), and yet still ‘believe’ there is a pink unicorn (or isn’t) because of their interpretation of their life experiences. It is not irrational to ‘know’ a limit, but ‘believe’ what lies beyond that limit.
Steve on 02/26/2007 at 10:06 PM
5
You might want to try substituting the phrase “radio waves” for “pink unicorn” and imagine presenting your spoof prior to the first human measurement of radio waves. Your spoof would have been very popular, I think. And wrong, as it turned out. That's why, in these situations, science sits on the fence.
csfield on 03/17/2007 at 11:28 PM
1
davidewingduncan on 02/23/2007 at 11:00 AM
8
I'm talking about a study that says millions of people in the developed world, never mind the devleoping world, who don't know what DNA is, or ozone. What does this have to do with religion? It seems rather defensive of those who do not agree with evolution (and heliocentricity?) to take my comments as an attack against their scientific literacy. I assume that people reading this blog know what DNA and ozone mean -- that's the point! Millions of Americans don't! These are the same Americans that can tell you everything about Anna Nicole Smith; and many of them can competently read a box score. Put in this context, it doesn't seem too much to ask that society figure out some way to make science more compelling, or to get out the message that DNA is worth knowing about and, infact, is cool.
But since evolution has been brought up, I second those commenters that have pointed out that when theories such as evolution and heolocentricity have held up for over a century and continue to amass proof are very solid theories indeed -- as any scientifically literate person should know.
Also, as I frequently suggest to creationists who write to me about evolution, why is it that in the last hundred years or so certain believers have decided that an all-powerful god could not have both created the universe and used evolution as His method of creation? To deny this might have happened seems to limit God -- indeed, St. Augustine and virtually every theologian and Christian who wrote on the topic of science and earthly matters vis-a-vis religious doctrine suggest that it is foolish for spiritual people to make claims about God's workings in the physical world because humans cannot understand His ways, and will only get into trouble when religious tenets about physical matters contradict empirical evidence. This is what got the Catholic Church (and the Protestant Church, too, at the time) in trouble about sticking to the theory of an Earth-centered universe despite a great weight of evidence that this is not true. As for evolution, the solution seems rather simple -- if one believes in God and creationism, why limit Him? Why spend so much time trying trying to count years backward in the bible to some date about 6,000 years ago. How long is a year to God? How long is a day when He in Genesis is creating the cosmos? Could a day to God be a billion years, or five billion years?
1611kjb on 02/23/2007 at 2:11 PM
3
gabrielg01 on 02/23/2007 at 3:47 PM
317