Are We Getting Smarter Or Dumber?
MonsieurEvil
Join Date: 2002-01-22 Member: 4Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
Join Date: 2002-01-22 Member: 4Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
<div class="IPBDescription">Or is it dumberer? ;)</div> <a href='http://www.betterhumans.com/Features/Columns/Transitory_Human/column.aspx?articleID=2003-12-22-2' target='_blank'>http://www.betterhumans.com/Features/Colum...ID=2003-12-22-2</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Scientific Ignorance Dooms Democracy
Increasingly hi-tech nations need informed citizens, making scientific literacy a human right and scientific illiteracy a disability
12/22/2003
I recently put a painting on my fridge door by my six-year old son, Lucas. In this particular composition, Lucas portrays a scientist diligently working in his "nanotechnology lab," operating what appears to be (to me anyway) a molecular assembler. When I asked Lucas if he knew what nanotechnology was, he replied, "Sure, Daddy, it's technology and robots that work at a microscopic size."
The kid's in grade one and has already picked sides in the Drexler-Smalley debate. He can also already describe the human digestive system in detail. And he knows that humans evolved from apes, that the fastest that anything can travel in the Universe is the speed of light and that hypotheses aren't set in stone—he acknowledges that the current theory of how the dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago is just that, a theory. So passionate is he for science that once, at an observatory open house, he overheard an astronomy professor teaching a class and felt compelled to correct him about how many moons orbit Saturn.
In addition to his insatiable appetite for all things scientific, Lucas has the advantage of a scientifically inclined father and exposure to excellent educational programs such as Bill Nye the Science Guy and The Magic Schoolbus, as well as Websites such as BrainPops.
With all this, I don't have to worry that Lucas will grow up scientifically illiterate. It's good to know that he'll be able to count off facts and figures, and even more comforting to know that he'll grow up with the broader, softer skills that science teaches, namely skepticism, empiricism and a dedication to formal methodologies. In other words, through learning about science, my son is becoming a critical thinker.
But he's probably in the minority. Ignorance of how science and technology works is rampant in our society, leading to a stunningly dependent, suggestible and ill-informed populace.
We all need to know about science. Without this knowledge we are powerless, forced to live in a fog about how things work. Without it, we are utterly dependent on others to form our opinion. Without it, we cannot properly participate in society as informed, critical and responsibly opinioned citizens. Moreover, in today's hi-tech information age world, democracy cannot work without a scientifically literate society.
On my way to work each day I pass a bus shelter ad that reads, "Literacy is a Right." Well, I'd take that further and declare that today scientific literacy is a basic human right. As with the inability to read, the inability to understand science and scientific methodology is nothing less than a disability.
Embarrassing ignorance
Most of those who live in the West, particularly North Americans, are guilty of an anti-intellectual bias. Scientists are supposed to be nerds, right? And who wants to be a nerd? This sentiment, combined with a general suspicion of science and the predominance of aggressive theological and pseudoscientific memes, has resulted in much of the scientific illiteracy that now pervades our society.
It doesn't help that the educational system is in shambles and without focus, and that fatuous postmodernism and its insistence that nothing can truly be known now dominates many disciplines at most universities. Consequently, too many people wear their ignorance like a badge of honor, as if being clueless about science is something to be proud of.
Well, there's nothing noble about ignorance, and if anything scientific illiteracy should be considered downright embarrassing. A 2001 poll conducted by the National Science Foundation in the US revealed the pervasiveness of the problem. Results showed that only 48% of Americans knew that the earliest humans did not live at the same time as the dinosaurs, and that only 22% could properly define a molecule. The survey also showed that only 45% knew what DNA was and that lasers don't work by focusing sound waves, and that 48% knew that electrons were smaller than atoms.
Just as significant, only 21% of those surveyed were able to explain what it means to study something scientifically. Slightly over half understood probability, and only a third knew how an experiment is conducted.
Cognitively disabled
The trouble with ignorance is not so much what people don't know but what this causes them to believe.
There is a direct correlation between scientific illiteracy and a propensity for belief in superstitions, religion, the paranormal and pseudoscience. Those unacquainted with science also tend to be more prone to scam artists, unwise investments, fiscal schemes and bogus health and medical practices. On this last note, a number of opportunistic hucksters are beginning to take advantage of the hype created by pending life extension technologies and stem cell research, making grand promises to hopeful people that can't possibly be fulfilled; the scientifically illiterate make for easy targets.
It's safe to suggest, therefore, that those with a deficiency in scientific comprehension have underdeveloped critical thought faculties. In other words, they might as well be suffering from some kind of cognitive disorder.
A consequence of this disability is that some will be left behind. As neuroscientist Steven Pinker has noted, "As our economy comes to depend increasingly on technology, and as modern media present us with unprecedented choices—in our lifestyles, our workplaces, and our political commitments—a child who cannot master an ever-increasing body of skills and knowledge will be left farther and farther behind."
Crippling society
The late Carl Sagan similarly worried about the effects of a scientifically illiterate society. "We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology," he lamented. "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."
Indeed, scientific illiteracy cripples culture, justice, democracy and society in general. When you have misinformed individuals you get unhealthy societies.
The way the media works today, with its problematic approach to "balanced" reporting instead of accurate reporting and its propensity for sensationalism, it is guilty of much of the misinformation and frequent fear-mongering that imbues news and pop culture.
Similarly, the judicial system is not immune to the problems posed by a scientifically illiterate populace. Judges and jurors, with little background in the hard sciences, tend to be easily swayed by so-called expert witnesses who, despite taking sworn oaths, spew weak and bogus science to help lawyers defend their case.
Scientific illiteracy also has political implications, resulting in such things as the rise of the religious right in the Bush administration and the prominence of orthodox office holders at all levels of its government. A misappraisal of science has also resulted in backwards legislation in the US, Canada and Europe for stem cell research, cloning and genetically modified foods. A recent Eurobarometer poll revealed that 60% of Europeans believe that ordinary tomatoes do not contain genes while genetically engineered tomatoes do, while 50% believe that eating genetically modified fruit can cause a person's genes to become modified.
As early as the 1950s, scientist and novelist C.P. Snow was already sounding the alarm about increasingly ignorant electorates. Snow coined the term "two cultures" to refer to the growing divergence between those in society who understand science and technology sufficiently to make informed choices and those who do not.
Biologist and education critic Stephen Schneider recognizes the threat that a scientifically illiterate society poses to a functional democracy. "We all share a strong belief in democracy," he notes, "but it can only function well when the people understand the choices they need to make and are in a position to make trade-offs rationally." He believes that as issues get increasingly complex, "ignorance decouples the people from the knowledge they need to help guide policy choices that can shape our future."
Psychologist Barry L. Beyerstein agrees. He contends that it is essential for a well-functioning democracy that "we all be conversant with the basics of science so that we can cut through political rhetoric and the daily news when these issues arise."
Science fuels democracy
Like the right to vote, those living in a democracy should demand the right to scientific literacy so that they may become informed and discerning citizens. As Carl Sagan noted, "Our species needs, and deserves, a citizenry with minds wide awake and a basic understanding of how the world works." A central lesson of science, argued Sagan, is that to understand complex issues, people must try to free their minds of dogma and to guarantee the freedom to publish, contradict and experiment. He strongly believed that arguments from authority were unacceptable.
Skepticism is one of the greatest tools that a person can have, and science teaches this as a matter of course. But the business of skepticism can often be dangerous. As Sagan observed, skepticism challenges established institutions. "If we teach everybody, including, say, high school students, habits of skeptical thought, they will probably not restrict their skepticism to UFOs, aspirin commercials, and 35,000-year-old channelees," wrote Sagan, "Maybe they'll start asking awkward questions about economic, or social, or political, or religious institutions. Perhaps they'll challenge the opinions of those in power. Then where would we be?"
Science helps us to be free of gross superstition and gross injustice. "Often, superstition and injustice are imposed by the same ecclesiastical and secular authorities, working hand in glove," Sagan argued. "It is no surprise that political revolutions, skepticism about religion, and the rise of science might go together. Liberation from superstition is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for science."
Indeed, as Schneider has observed, science literacy is not just about the "facts"—knowledge of chemistry, physics, biology or economics per se. "More important for non-specialists," says Schneider, "is to understand the process of science, and how science interacts with public policy issues and gets communicated via the media."
What can be done?
All this begs the question: What can be done?
First and foremost there must to be a push for education reform. According to Pinker, most high school and college curricula have barely changed since medieval times mostly because "no one wants to be the philistine who seems to be saying that it is unimportant to learn a foreign language, or English literature, or trigonometry, or the classics." He worries about how classroom practices are set by "fads, romantic theories, slick packages, and political crusades." To alleviate the problem, Pinker believes that a scientific mindset needs to be applied to the educational process and a renewed commitment to the sciences, including the fields of economics, biology, probability and statistics.
Education reform also rests with the scientists themselves. Education critic Neal Lane, the former assistant to the US president for science and technology, has proposed the idea of the "civic scientist." "What we need," says Lane, "is the science community's leadership to educate the nation about the value of science and technology to our national well-being." Neal envisions a proactive and socially active scientific community.
We also need educational systems that are accountable—ones that respect the human right to a liberal education and high academic standards. It's preposterous that Creationism is still taught in some schools. This issue has nothing to do with freedom of religion and everything to do with one's right to be free from religion. Otherwise, schools might just as well teach that the Earth is flat and that the Moon is made out of cheese.
And finally, we all need to promote science as an attractive discipline and as a means to personal empowerment and social betterment. As science educator Nye has said to children across North America, science is cool.
And indeed it is—and more so than ever before. Today, scientists are busy discussing the possibility of infinite universes, microscopic robots that will operate in the body, cyborg and artificial citizens, plants that can clean toxic waste in the soil and a manned expedition to Mars.
While exciting, however, all these things are prone to misunderstanding and apprehension. Unless we have a populace that can fully understand and assess these and other pending issues, we risk squandering what should be wonderful opportunities for individuals and the species. We also risk creating the "two cultures" envisioned by Snow—the intellectual haves and have-nots.
The time to act is now, for those who fail to grasp the scientific issues of our time will find the future truly incomprehensible.
George Dvorsky is the deputy editor of Betterhumans and the president of the Toronto Transhumanist Association, a nonprofit organization devoted to encouraging the use of technology to transcend limitations of the human body. He is currently chairing the organizing committee for the World Transhumanist Association's TransVision 2004 conference. For more Dvorsky, visit his transhumanist blog, Sentient Developments. You can reach him at george@betterhumans.com.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A very interesting article. Some of it I agree with, some I don't, and some I think is just hypocritical (extra points for seeing those few spots <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> ). I personally think there's a lot of Chicken Little in this article, and that it's a tad myopic (honestly, do you think people are more or less scientifically aware today than say, the dark ages of Europe?). But of course, what do I know? Let's hear your thoughts on this.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Scientific Ignorance Dooms Democracy
Increasingly hi-tech nations need informed citizens, making scientific literacy a human right and scientific illiteracy a disability
12/22/2003
I recently put a painting on my fridge door by my six-year old son, Lucas. In this particular composition, Lucas portrays a scientist diligently working in his "nanotechnology lab," operating what appears to be (to me anyway) a molecular assembler. When I asked Lucas if he knew what nanotechnology was, he replied, "Sure, Daddy, it's technology and robots that work at a microscopic size."
The kid's in grade one and has already picked sides in the Drexler-Smalley debate. He can also already describe the human digestive system in detail. And he knows that humans evolved from apes, that the fastest that anything can travel in the Universe is the speed of light and that hypotheses aren't set in stone—he acknowledges that the current theory of how the dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago is just that, a theory. So passionate is he for science that once, at an observatory open house, he overheard an astronomy professor teaching a class and felt compelled to correct him about how many moons orbit Saturn.
In addition to his insatiable appetite for all things scientific, Lucas has the advantage of a scientifically inclined father and exposure to excellent educational programs such as Bill Nye the Science Guy and The Magic Schoolbus, as well as Websites such as BrainPops.
With all this, I don't have to worry that Lucas will grow up scientifically illiterate. It's good to know that he'll be able to count off facts and figures, and even more comforting to know that he'll grow up with the broader, softer skills that science teaches, namely skepticism, empiricism and a dedication to formal methodologies. In other words, through learning about science, my son is becoming a critical thinker.
But he's probably in the minority. Ignorance of how science and technology works is rampant in our society, leading to a stunningly dependent, suggestible and ill-informed populace.
We all need to know about science. Without this knowledge we are powerless, forced to live in a fog about how things work. Without it, we are utterly dependent on others to form our opinion. Without it, we cannot properly participate in society as informed, critical and responsibly opinioned citizens. Moreover, in today's hi-tech information age world, democracy cannot work without a scientifically literate society.
On my way to work each day I pass a bus shelter ad that reads, "Literacy is a Right." Well, I'd take that further and declare that today scientific literacy is a basic human right. As with the inability to read, the inability to understand science and scientific methodology is nothing less than a disability.
Embarrassing ignorance
Most of those who live in the West, particularly North Americans, are guilty of an anti-intellectual bias. Scientists are supposed to be nerds, right? And who wants to be a nerd? This sentiment, combined with a general suspicion of science and the predominance of aggressive theological and pseudoscientific memes, has resulted in much of the scientific illiteracy that now pervades our society.
It doesn't help that the educational system is in shambles and without focus, and that fatuous postmodernism and its insistence that nothing can truly be known now dominates many disciplines at most universities. Consequently, too many people wear their ignorance like a badge of honor, as if being clueless about science is something to be proud of.
Well, there's nothing noble about ignorance, and if anything scientific illiteracy should be considered downright embarrassing. A 2001 poll conducted by the National Science Foundation in the US revealed the pervasiveness of the problem. Results showed that only 48% of Americans knew that the earliest humans did not live at the same time as the dinosaurs, and that only 22% could properly define a molecule. The survey also showed that only 45% knew what DNA was and that lasers don't work by focusing sound waves, and that 48% knew that electrons were smaller than atoms.
Just as significant, only 21% of those surveyed were able to explain what it means to study something scientifically. Slightly over half understood probability, and only a third knew how an experiment is conducted.
Cognitively disabled
The trouble with ignorance is not so much what people don't know but what this causes them to believe.
There is a direct correlation between scientific illiteracy and a propensity for belief in superstitions, religion, the paranormal and pseudoscience. Those unacquainted with science also tend to be more prone to scam artists, unwise investments, fiscal schemes and bogus health and medical practices. On this last note, a number of opportunistic hucksters are beginning to take advantage of the hype created by pending life extension technologies and stem cell research, making grand promises to hopeful people that can't possibly be fulfilled; the scientifically illiterate make for easy targets.
It's safe to suggest, therefore, that those with a deficiency in scientific comprehension have underdeveloped critical thought faculties. In other words, they might as well be suffering from some kind of cognitive disorder.
A consequence of this disability is that some will be left behind. As neuroscientist Steven Pinker has noted, "As our economy comes to depend increasingly on technology, and as modern media present us with unprecedented choices—in our lifestyles, our workplaces, and our political commitments—a child who cannot master an ever-increasing body of skills and knowledge will be left farther and farther behind."
Crippling society
The late Carl Sagan similarly worried about the effects of a scientifically illiterate society. "We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology," he lamented. "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."
Indeed, scientific illiteracy cripples culture, justice, democracy and society in general. When you have misinformed individuals you get unhealthy societies.
The way the media works today, with its problematic approach to "balanced" reporting instead of accurate reporting and its propensity for sensationalism, it is guilty of much of the misinformation and frequent fear-mongering that imbues news and pop culture.
Similarly, the judicial system is not immune to the problems posed by a scientifically illiterate populace. Judges and jurors, with little background in the hard sciences, tend to be easily swayed by so-called expert witnesses who, despite taking sworn oaths, spew weak and bogus science to help lawyers defend their case.
Scientific illiteracy also has political implications, resulting in such things as the rise of the religious right in the Bush administration and the prominence of orthodox office holders at all levels of its government. A misappraisal of science has also resulted in backwards legislation in the US, Canada and Europe for stem cell research, cloning and genetically modified foods. A recent Eurobarometer poll revealed that 60% of Europeans believe that ordinary tomatoes do not contain genes while genetically engineered tomatoes do, while 50% believe that eating genetically modified fruit can cause a person's genes to become modified.
As early as the 1950s, scientist and novelist C.P. Snow was already sounding the alarm about increasingly ignorant electorates. Snow coined the term "two cultures" to refer to the growing divergence between those in society who understand science and technology sufficiently to make informed choices and those who do not.
Biologist and education critic Stephen Schneider recognizes the threat that a scientifically illiterate society poses to a functional democracy. "We all share a strong belief in democracy," he notes, "but it can only function well when the people understand the choices they need to make and are in a position to make trade-offs rationally." He believes that as issues get increasingly complex, "ignorance decouples the people from the knowledge they need to help guide policy choices that can shape our future."
Psychologist Barry L. Beyerstein agrees. He contends that it is essential for a well-functioning democracy that "we all be conversant with the basics of science so that we can cut through political rhetoric and the daily news when these issues arise."
Science fuels democracy
Like the right to vote, those living in a democracy should demand the right to scientific literacy so that they may become informed and discerning citizens. As Carl Sagan noted, "Our species needs, and deserves, a citizenry with minds wide awake and a basic understanding of how the world works." A central lesson of science, argued Sagan, is that to understand complex issues, people must try to free their minds of dogma and to guarantee the freedom to publish, contradict and experiment. He strongly believed that arguments from authority were unacceptable.
Skepticism is one of the greatest tools that a person can have, and science teaches this as a matter of course. But the business of skepticism can often be dangerous. As Sagan observed, skepticism challenges established institutions. "If we teach everybody, including, say, high school students, habits of skeptical thought, they will probably not restrict their skepticism to UFOs, aspirin commercials, and 35,000-year-old channelees," wrote Sagan, "Maybe they'll start asking awkward questions about economic, or social, or political, or religious institutions. Perhaps they'll challenge the opinions of those in power. Then where would we be?"
Science helps us to be free of gross superstition and gross injustice. "Often, superstition and injustice are imposed by the same ecclesiastical and secular authorities, working hand in glove," Sagan argued. "It is no surprise that political revolutions, skepticism about religion, and the rise of science might go together. Liberation from superstition is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for science."
Indeed, as Schneider has observed, science literacy is not just about the "facts"—knowledge of chemistry, physics, biology or economics per se. "More important for non-specialists," says Schneider, "is to understand the process of science, and how science interacts with public policy issues and gets communicated via the media."
What can be done?
All this begs the question: What can be done?
First and foremost there must to be a push for education reform. According to Pinker, most high school and college curricula have barely changed since medieval times mostly because "no one wants to be the philistine who seems to be saying that it is unimportant to learn a foreign language, or English literature, or trigonometry, or the classics." He worries about how classroom practices are set by "fads, romantic theories, slick packages, and political crusades." To alleviate the problem, Pinker believes that a scientific mindset needs to be applied to the educational process and a renewed commitment to the sciences, including the fields of economics, biology, probability and statistics.
Education reform also rests with the scientists themselves. Education critic Neal Lane, the former assistant to the US president for science and technology, has proposed the idea of the "civic scientist." "What we need," says Lane, "is the science community's leadership to educate the nation about the value of science and technology to our national well-being." Neal envisions a proactive and socially active scientific community.
We also need educational systems that are accountable—ones that respect the human right to a liberal education and high academic standards. It's preposterous that Creationism is still taught in some schools. This issue has nothing to do with freedom of religion and everything to do with one's right to be free from religion. Otherwise, schools might just as well teach that the Earth is flat and that the Moon is made out of cheese.
And finally, we all need to promote science as an attractive discipline and as a means to personal empowerment and social betterment. As science educator Nye has said to children across North America, science is cool.
And indeed it is—and more so than ever before. Today, scientists are busy discussing the possibility of infinite universes, microscopic robots that will operate in the body, cyborg and artificial citizens, plants that can clean toxic waste in the soil and a manned expedition to Mars.
While exciting, however, all these things are prone to misunderstanding and apprehension. Unless we have a populace that can fully understand and assess these and other pending issues, we risk squandering what should be wonderful opportunities for individuals and the species. We also risk creating the "two cultures" envisioned by Snow—the intellectual haves and have-nots.
The time to act is now, for those who fail to grasp the scientific issues of our time will find the future truly incomprehensible.
George Dvorsky is the deputy editor of Betterhumans and the president of the Toronto Transhumanist Association, a nonprofit organization devoted to encouraging the use of technology to transcend limitations of the human body. He is currently chairing the organizing committee for the World Transhumanist Association's TransVision 2004 conference. For more Dvorsky, visit his transhumanist blog, Sentient Developments. You can reach him at george@betterhumans.com.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A very interesting article. Some of it I agree with, some I don't, and some I think is just hypocritical (extra points for seeing those few spots <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> ). I personally think there's a lot of Chicken Little in this article, and that it's a tad myopic (honestly, do you think people are more or less scientifically aware today than say, the dark ages of Europe?). But of course, what do I know? Let's hear your thoughts on this.
Comments
This is my new setinfo in #naturalselection.
I agree with this article almost totally. His view on creationism being taught in schools was a little strong I feel, a bit too arrogantly bashing religion for my tastes, even though I don't believe any of it. I would like to see the results of a science survey done across all nations. I bet Australia would rank pretty highly. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
--Scythe--
I'm not sure I buy totally into the "failure" of the public school system that many seem to be attached to. I had a wonderful experience in High School.
I will tell you that the College courses I've taken so far have all been utter crap, but I haven't gotten to the heavy stuff yet. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
I do agree most heartily about the "anti-intellectual" (anti-nerd) trends. I find it hilarious that many find it "cool to be stupid."
Yeah, on the idiocy ranking <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif'><!--endemo-->
**memories of being chased through a schoolyard for mentioning something scientific**
I don't think he makes a good enough distinction between science and scientific discipline. It would be nice if everyone was scientifically literate. However, it's more important for everyone do think scientifically or at least understand how scientists think. Labelling this "skepticism" is too broad.
Yeah, on the idiocy ranking <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh touch?.
--Scythe--
This an extremely stupid point being made. I am sorry, but over here we actually learn about science. It really depends on the teacher, if the teacher is motivitated into teaching what he is suppossed to be teaching, then most likely kids will be learning. And in public schools, we do not learn about creationism, maybe over there in hick town.
when I was young, the only TV channels we got were 3, 6, 10, and 13
6 was PBS, and every day I would come home and watch there whole slew of educatinal programing
when I was a sophmore in highschool I was jumping the gun to answer questions my teacher had just asked, and I knew the answers from watching bill nye etc
<!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Mr. Merv Grazinski of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma purchased a brand new 32-foot Winnebago motor home. On his first trip home, having driven onto the freeway, he set the cruise control at 70 mph and calmly left the drivers seat to go into the back and make himself a cup of coffee. Not surprisingly, the R.V. left the freeway, crashed and overturned. Mr. Grazinski sued Winnebago for not advising him in the owner's manual that he couldn't actually do this. The jury awarded him $1,750,000 plus a new motor home. The company actually changed their manuals on the basis of this suit, just in case there were any other complete morons buying their recreation vehicles.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What does this article say about common society? Any old @$$ can be stupid then blame it on someone else. The worst part is that he even had a driver's license in the first place.
Dumberererererererer <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
I've seen many people with that type of thinking.
Yeah, they're stupid.
No, they're not cool.
The Western society advertises their "be dumb - be cool" slogan almost to the point of enforcing it as a rule. I've seen some <u>teachers</u> in <u>public schools</u> mocking their smartest students.
Jeez. With this trend increasing in popularity, I might actually get into some respected university or something <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
(burned myself... darn)
My fifth grade math teacher called me a nerd in front of the rest of the class. She's still teaching.
My fifth grade math teacher called me a nerd in front of the rest of the class. She's still teaching. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I guess that's the kind of motivation that makes you want to get a job that's miles away from her POS job. When you come back to visit your school rich as a mofo, smoke trillion dollar bills in front of her face. And if she gives you that crap about, "I said what I said to bring you where you are today!" throw diamonds at her.
Sharp ones.
I really wish someone had told me that I was gullible and stupid and unscientific BEFORE I applied for a Bachelor of Science.... oh well, back to the book burning.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->With all this, I don't have to worry that Lucas will grow up scientifically illiterate. It's good to know that he'll be able to count off facts and figures, and even more comforting to know that he'll grow up with the broader, softer skills that science teaches, namely skepticism, empiricism and a dedication to formal methodologies. In other words, through learning about science, my son is becoming a critical thinker.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In other words, my son will grow up just like me, which cant be a bad thing, can it? Every parent thinks like that. If the writer had been heavily religious, he would have said his child's passion for the Bible would mean he would grow up with skills like faith and present that as a big plus.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This sentiment, combined with a general suspicion of science and the predominance of aggressive theological and pseudoscientific memes, has resulted in much of the scientific illiteracy that now pervades our society. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
General suspicion of science? Most people I know are proud of the scientific achievements of the West. But yet another barb at the religious people. Strange that all the religious folk I know wouldnt touch "pseudoscientific memes" such as naturopathy with a 10 foot pole. Strange that they are always heavy supporters of education, with the only point of dissent being the Theory of Evolution. Does this man only hang around 14 yr old girls who read horoscopes and laugh at nerds?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well, there's nothing noble about ignorance, and if anything scientific illiteracy should be considered downright embarrassing. A 2001 poll conducted by the National Science Foundation in the US revealed the pervasiveness of the problem. Results showed that only 48% of Americans knew that the earliest humans did not live at the same time as the dinosaurs, and that only 22% could properly define a molecule. The survey also showed that only 45% knew what DNA was and that lasers don't work by focusing sound waves, and that 48% knew that electrons were smaller than atoms.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Strangely enough, this time the author forgets to put in an anti-religious barb. But again I find myself disagreeing with him. These things are all great things to know, and I knew them already. But when you ask your hairdresser if she knows them and she doesnt - who here is going to call "n00b"? These things have no relevance at all to her daily life. Some people look at science and say "what does learning about science have to offer me" and come up with nothing. Science is for some, not everyone.
Its akin to the prom queen laughing at the rest of the world for not understanding the different between L'oreal and Maybolline.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The trouble with ignorance is not so much what people don't know but what this causes them to believe.
There is a direct correlation between scientific illiteracy and a propensity for belief in superstitions, religion, the paranormal and pseudoscience.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh noes, we cant have this evil proliferating in our country can we. Shortened version of that - anyone who believes in horoscopes, santa claus, Jesus Christ, Mohammed, ghosts and naturopathy is an ignorant fool.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
It's safe to suggest, therefore, that those with a deficiency in scientific comprehension have underdeveloped critical thought faculties. In other words, they might as well be suffering from some kind of cognitive disorder. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dont believe what I believe? Wonderful, then you have a cognitive disorder. You are a retard. You have underdeveloped critical thought faculties.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Similarly, the judicial system is not immune to the problems posed by a scientifically illiterate populace. Judges and jurors, with little background in the hard sciences, tend to be easily swayed by so-called expert witnesses who, despite taking sworn oaths, spew weak and bogus science to help lawyers defend their case.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats a lovely little summing up of the Judical system eh? Why dont we just let a computer handle the courts for us? I hope my lawyer sister never gets to read that, lest she burst blood vessels.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Scientific illiteracy also has political implications, resulting in such things as the rise of the religious right in the Bush administration and the prominence of orthodox office holders at all levels of its government. A misappraisal of science has also resulted in backwards legislation in the US, Canada and Europe for stem cell research, cloning and genetically modified foods.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, the evil religious people are trying to send us back to the dark ages, infilitrating our government and stalling critical and vital technological development.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As early as the 1950s, scientist and novelist C.P. Snow was already sounding the alarm about increasingly ignorant electorates. Snow coined the term "two cultures" to refer to the growing divergence between those in society who understand science and technology sufficiently to make informed choices and those who do not. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In other words, two different groups of people. Ones that understand science and technology enough to make choices that agree with ours - and the other group, which we will call n00bs. In the event that they understand science and tech but dont agree with us - redirect to group B. Different opinion? Obviously you dont understand sci and tech.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A central lesson of science, argued Sagan, is that to understand complex issues, people must try to free their minds of dogma and to guarantee the freedom to publish, contradict and experiment. He strongly believed that arguments from authority were unacceptable.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you are dealing with things in science - then I agree with this statement 100%. However, it sounds like he wishes to apply this universally throughout society, and I resent that in the extreme.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Skepticism is one of the greatest tools that a person can have, and science teaches this as a matter of course.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, another pro-atheist anti religious comment.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Science helps us to be free of gross superstition and gross injustice. "Often, superstition and injustice are imposed by the same ecclesiastical and secular authorities, working hand in glove," Sagan argued. "It is no surprise that political revolutions, skepticism about religion, and the rise of science might go together. Liberation from superstition is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for science."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Funny how many of those contributing to the "Rise of Science" happened to be those guilty of gross superstition - such as those poor idiots Pastuer and Newton. Luckily we have those who were skeptic about religion and started political revolution - like everyone's mutual friend Lenin. Think that was bad though? What about those political upheavers who were beguiled by the evils of religion? Martin Luther - Martin Luther King etc. History still has their bitter taste in its mouth. Start burning churchs my friends, before these religious maniacs destroy us all.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->First and foremost there must to be a push for education reform. According to Pinker, most high school and college curricula have barely changed since medieval times mostly because "no one wants to be the philistine who seems to be saying that it is unimportant to learn a foreign language, or English literature, or trigonometry, or the classics." He worries about how classroom practices are set by "fads, romantic theories, slick packages, and political crusades." To alleviate the problem, Pinker believes that a scientific mindset needs to be applied to the educational process and a renewed commitment to the sciences, including the fields of economics, biology, probability and statistics. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would love to see more scientific emphasis too, but science isnt everything, and it certainly shouldnt be the rigid base upon which education sits. To take the "Science is everythings, nothing else matters" is folly.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We also need educational systems that are accountable—ones that respect the human right to a liberal education and high academic standards. It's preposterous that Creationism is still taught in some schools. This issue has nothing to do with freedom of religion and everything to do with one's right to be free from religion. Otherwise, schools might just as well teach that the Earth is flat and that the Moon is made out of cheese.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am not a huge supporter of Creationism being taught in schools - RE fine, but not as a hard science. But if you wish to be free from religion - send your kid to another school.
Conclusion - bah. Dont disguise anti religious rants in "are our children scientifcally inept". Amazing how the tables have turned. Turn the clock back and it was "Religion is obviously right - if you disagree then you are wrong." and "We cant teach anything anti religious in our schools". Now its "Science is obviously right - if you disagree you are wrong, and we cant have anything anti-science in our schools". The superior arrogance and total assuredness of his own correctness just SCREAMS Middle Age Catholic church. I am right, you are wrong, and we must stamp out that which is wrong.
So, what did you say? I would probably have called her a retard that has no business teaching math...
The poll that reveals how only genetically engineered tomatos have genes is really the summary of this whole article. 60% of a population is a majority vote, and in a Democracy, that's more than enough to make something into unquestionable law. Now, how are you going to get a proper vote (or even a non-vote) from someone that believes these genes are here from the planet "Vergon 6" to kill us all ?
I think this whole article shows us just why there have been revolutions over anything in the past. The only problem is that we're plum out of more land to move to and form a new country in. So we're stuck sharing space with people we loathe.
And on an educational note. My 8th grade geometry teacher actually moved me to the back corner of the class so I could sleep. He knew I knew the material and wasn't gonna bug me about it. There are still good seeds in our educational system.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I find it incredibly hard to stomach you claiming A) That the ignorant masses flock to religion and then carrying on to B) demand that I not reply to that statement because I'll be offtopic. Talk about hitting a man and then informing him he isnt allowed to strike you back.
Not an anti-religious article? Please, reread the damn thing. It had more anti-religious stuff in there then the average "on the failings and delusions of modern theology" paper. Completely riddled with it. If he wants to discuss how scientific learning amongst our children should be encouraged, fine. But he didnt - he dragged religion into this, not me. Basic thrust of his article - we need to educate our children with more scientific emphasis so they do not fall prey to such evils as religion.
If he only had one crack at religion in there, I wouldnt have touched it. At two, I would have just gritted my teeth and left it. I counted no less than eight. He started this - dont YOU dare tell me not to reply.
I'm not the only person to have noticed this - from his posts on this board Scythe is clearly not a supporter of right wing religion, but even he notes
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->His view on creationism being taught in schools was a little strong I feel, a bit too arrogantly bashing religion for my tastes, even though I don't believe any of it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Most of those who live in the West, particularly North Americans, are guilty of an anti-intellectual bias. Scientists are supposed to be nerds, right? And who wants to be a nerd? This sentiment, combined with a general suspicion of science and the predominance of aggressive theological and pseudoscientific memes, has resulted in much of the scientific illiteracy that now pervades our society.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All he's saying here is that most people receive a religious explanation for the "hard questions" far more often than a non-religious explanation. And lets face it, a religious explanation never brings about critical thinking unless you're trying to disprove it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
There is a direct correlation between scientific illiteracy and a propensity for belief in superstitions, religion, the paranormal and pseudoscience.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is a fact. And it's only a bash if you associate superstitions, the paranormal and/or pseudoscience as *bad* things. But they really do go hand-in-hand if you think about it. Jesus coming back from the dead and healing the sick is a definite example of something paranormal. And believing that eating pork on a friday is a hellworthy tresspass qualifies as a superstition.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Scientific illiteracy also has political implications, resulting in such things as the rise of the religious right in the Bush administration and the prominence of orthodox office holders at all levels of its government.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"The rise of the religious right" only implies that more and more decisions are being based on religious beliefs. Which is obviously a shadowy joining of church and state. And if you deny that this kind of thing happens, then you need to take another look at such things as how Big Businesses affect our political decisions.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
It's preposterous that Creationism is still taught in some schools. This issue has nothing to do with freedom of religion and everything to do with one's right to be free from religion. Otherwise, schools might just as well teach that the Earth is flat and that the Moon is made out of cheese.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The reason this is preposterous is because there is absolutely NO possible way to teach creationism without bringing in a specific religion as a vessel. I'm fine with them not teaching evolution if people are gonna whine about it, but seriously...creationism in schools is a no brainer for church and state separation.
So, I still don't see how you can claim that this article is "riddled" with anti-religious rhetoric. Unless you make some kind of politically incorrect connection between religion and superstition and ignorance.
Now, if we can please get back on-topic about how "not understanding the way the world works" is a problem to a democratic society.
I think that sometimes people need to see something in the extreme to understand the issue. Let's say you've got a cancerous tumor in your brain. And let's say that modern science has shown us that this tumor is treatable in some way/shape/form. Now let's take this analogy and bring in the democratic aspect of it. Let's say that we have a panel of 10 people that will decide FOR YOU how you're going to be treated for this tumor, and they will make this decision based on a vote without ever being able to discuss the matter with eachother. On this panel we have a cancer expert, a neurosurgeon, a veterinarian, a biologist, and 6 students from a local junior high that are on a field trip. I don't know about you, but I don't like the chances you have of getting the *correct* treatment. You might get something that works, but who knows what kind of hell you'll go through before it's over.
This is the problem the article addresses. We live in a world where the uninformed are provided the opportunity to alter your future by the government. And all I can say is that it sickens me. This is the class of problem that has only been solved with fire and revolution in the past.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>And he knows that humans evolved from apes</b>, that the fastest that anything can travel in the Universe is the speed of light and that <b>hypotheses aren't set in stone—he acknowledges that the current theory of how the dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago is just that, a theory.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I find it funny how human evolution from apes is already been acknowledged as <b>fact</b>, not <b>theory</b>. That tells me enough about his views on religion.
In this entire editorial, it would of helped a lot more if the statistics provided gave information on the age range, his only "scientific evidence" to contribute to his assumption that scientific illiteracy is coming to damn us all if we don't do something soon. What is the age range of those who "failed" in these simple scientific questions? Most likely the older people of the population. Why do I think that? Since science is always on the change, you WILL fall out of date if you're not constantly picking up the latest in science. I will assume that after force feeding of science is stopped once you leave school, you become detached unless you take a keen interest in it by means of reading science magazines/Discovery channel, or you pursue it in university/career.
But we're talking about the older generation here, is it that important that they be up to date with science. I compare this with having computer know-how; basic knowledge in computers is a must today since pretty much every job requires it. My dad doesn't know have much computer knowledge, but guess what? He's retired. He doesn't use the computer except for the odd e-mail I might have to dictate for him every once in a while. In other words, computer knowledge is next to useless for him. The same probably applies to many baby boomers as they start taking their long deserved break and live out the last years of life remaining. They may still be dominating the voting population, but that will soon come to pass.
So then our main concern should be directed towards the younger generations, since we're going to be the leaders of tomorrow... *shudders*. Speaking for my school, I feel it has done a good enough job preparing us for the rudiments in science. Even if it doesn't, so what? The writer states that the main concern is that the lack science takes away from the use critical thinking. Assuming that it isn't just teaching "facts" teaching social studies and literature can accomplish the same thing.
And I understand that knowing about science helps to avoid consequences that might of otherwise arisen from ignorance, (i.e., miracle medicine), but that only means you've got your self well protected against people who try to take advantage of those ignorant in science. There are plenty of other ways to get screwed over; ignorance in history is a powerful one (Eugenics movement). To me ignorance in the arts is a pretty damning one as well; to me it means the ignorance of how to actually "live" a life. But you can't cover all your tracks; scams and getting conned comes in all kinds of forms. You can only go so far in education...
Most of those who live in the West, particularly North Americans, are guilty of an anti-intellectual bias. Scientists are supposed to be nerds, right? And who wants to be a nerd? This sentiment, combined with a general suspicion of science and the predominance of aggressive theological and pseudoscientific memes, has resulted in much of the scientific illiteracy that now pervades our society.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All he's saying here is that most people receive a religious explanation for the "hard questions" far more often than a non-religious explanation. And lets face it, a religious explanation never brings about critical thinking unless you're trying to disprove it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Quite frankly - bs. The only area in which science and religion really go head to head is evolution. In every other area, its pure science. Most people do NOT recieve a religious explaination as to answers for the "hard questions" - unless that "hard question" relates to either A) evolution or B) "Why am I here/whats life all about". And even then, the religious answer to A is increasingly ignored, as evolution is by far the more accepted theory. Please feel free to let me know of any more "hard questions" in which people mainly ignore science to listen to the religious explaination (tip - dont go searching in the realms of theology for this question). This man is blaming aggressive theological memes (read Right Wing Christianity) for scientific illiteracy, which is complete rubbish. He hates right wing religion not because it hates science, but because it hates evolution, as he reveals lower down in his out-of-nowhere attack on Creationism in schools.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
There is a direct correlation between scientific illiteracy and a propensity for belief in superstitions, religion, the paranormal and pseudoscience. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is a fact. And it's only a bash if you associate superstitions, the paranormal and/or pseudoscience as *bad* things. But they really do go hand-in-hand if you think about it. Jesus coming back from the dead and healing the sick is a definite example of something paranormal. And believing that eating pork on a friday is a hellworthy tresspass qualifies as a superstition.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think his article made it pretty clear he made these associations as bad things. Constantly coupling scientific ignorance and religion counts as a bash to me. And then he couples scientific ignorance, and ergo religion, with this
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's safe to suggest, therefore, that those with a deficiency in scientific comprehension have underdeveloped critical thought faculties. In other words, they might as well be suffering from some kind of cognitive disorder. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Getting the negative vibe here? Religion = scientific ignorance = underdeveloped critical thought faculties = cognitive disorder. I dont feel like I'm recieving a compliment here. He never comes out and actually declares open season on the religious zealots, but constant propounding of skepticism and the connection between scientific ignorance and religion makes it very clear. And then he whips out an attack on creationism from no where. This is an interesting article about the need for a larger scientific emphasis in education gone wrong because the author cannot resist a chance to take a poke at religion.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Scientific illiteracy also has political implications, resulting in such things as the rise of the religious right in the Bush administration and the prominence of orthodox office holders at all levels of its government.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"The rise of the religious right" only implies that more and more decisions are being based on religious beliefs. Which is obviously a shadowy joining of church and state. And if you deny that this kind of thing happens, then you need to take another look at such things as how Big Businesses affect our political decisions.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You notice the start of that sentence - "Scientific illiteracy"? To reqoute it again with editing:
"Scientific illiteracy has also resulted in such things as the rise of the religious right in the Bush administration."
If you feel that my re-editting has somehow twisted or taken the original statement out of context, please explain to me how.
He might as well have tatooed "Science n00b" on my head. Extremely obvious connection being made there - the religious right are scientifically ignorant. He is argueing in this that scientific ignorance is bad. Its not hard for me to figure out that he considers religion bad.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
It's preposterous that Creationism is still taught in some schools. This issue has nothing to do with freedom of religion and everything to do with one's right to be free from religion. Otherwise, schools might just as well teach that the Earth is flat and that the Moon is made out of cheese.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The reason this is preposterous is because there is absolutely NO possible way to teach creationism without bringing in a specific religion as a vessel. I'm fine with them not teaching evolution if people are gonna whine about it, but seriously...creationism in schools is a no brainer for church and state separation.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree with that wholeheartedly - Creationism should not be taught in public schools. He didnt even bother trying to argue that its negative to science, he just talking about freedoms and ridiculing it. Thats why I call that comment uncalled for and out of left field. What it did have to do with the topic at hand was abandoned in favour of ridicule. He didnt put it in to further his arguement, he put it in because its a pet hate of his.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So, I still don't see how you can claim that this article is "riddled" with anti-religious rhetoric. Unless you make some kind of politically incorrect connection between religion and superstition and ignorance.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think I've made it pretty clear above why HE is making the politically incorrect connection. Constant propounding of skepticism as a benefit, constant implied "religion is ignorance" type statements makes me feel like its riddled with it.
I'm with Darwin on this one. Naural selection (not Natural Selection) is constantly winnowing the chaff from the wheat. Those that survive to breed do NOT stop diving make coffee in a moving vehicle (usually), the only ones we hear about are the "miraculous" survivors.
I'm not fully behind equating scientific knowledge with intelligence tbh, one glaring hole in the article to begin with. If your accept that, though, I do kind of see where he is coming from. For example, the level of IT in everyday lives that we see, at work, at home, in our cars etc, there is a definite separation (more so I'd say that with most industries) between those that can, and those that can't. The technically savvy are almost viewed as a new priesthood, or different class. How may times have you been asked to fix a friend/relative/stranger's PC/dvd player/milk carton? One of the other techs here has a t-shirt bearing the legend "No, I will not help fix your computer", simply because once its known, you get pestered.
The more I think about this actually, the angrier I get at the author's self-righteous more scientific-than-thou attitude. I couldn't give a monkeys about his molecular assembler, and don't think it would have a massive impact on anyone's day-to-day lives if it broke.
I hope he takes his son camping, their 30 year old "retro" truck breaks down, and he is unable to synthesise a nanotechnology wrench. His son then has to watch as his father is eaten by bears, before dying a slow death of non-nano-technology related exposure.
The scariest things about this are that firstly That someone so closed minded should be allowed to publish outside their specialistion. Secondly that they have been allowed to breed, and thirdly that they be allowed to home educate. As a home edder myself, thats a pretty strong statement.
That being said, I'm done talking in this thread until it gets back on-topic. Any time a thread moves to religion, it always gets to be 20 bagillion pages long and all that happens in the end are a few bans and a lock because nomatter how hard you try, some people just can't see eye-to-eye without a hammer and a home address.
I honestly dont think I am WHO, but if you dont care to elaborate, then I guess there isnt much more to be said here on the matter. These connections seem to be glaringly obvious to me, following logical processions until I arrive at the conclusion that scientific ignorance = religion as far as the author is concerned. The statement
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Scientific illiteracy also has political implications, resulting in such things as the rise of the religious right in the Bush administration and the prominence of orthodox office holders at all levels of its government.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
is pretty much the confirmation I needed from what he implied throughout the rest of his article. I fail to see how the above line can be read without making the connection that the religious right are scientifically illiterate. I'm more than willing to read a firm rebuttal as to how that isnt the case, but seeing as you are unable or unwilling to do so, I guess I'll have to hope someone else picks up the baton.
I reread your comment on this section above, and I still consider that flawed.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"The rise of the religious right" only implies that more and more decisions are being based on religious beliefs. Which is obviously a shadowy joining of church and state. And if you deny that this kind of thing happens, then you need to take another look at such things as how Big Businesses affect our political decisions.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He specifically stated that scientific ignorance was responsible for the rise of the religious right in politics. Now while he might also imply that more and more decisions are being based on religious beliefs (and its probably true) that in no way absolves him from making accusations like the first sentence of this paragraph.
I'm particularly interested in the '70 don't know how to read' and '1 has a college education'
Also 1 out of 100 people would have a computer.
So in other words, if you are reading this, you are already 0.3% of the world's population given you know how to read and you are using a computer. If you have a college education? Try 0.003% of the world's population.
You all don't realize how good you have it. Food for thought.
Things vary regionally. But I have met hordes of anti scientific quacks (mother fkers) who disdain science, "book learning", distrust and disparage the learned and good men and women of the scientific fields.
Do not be quick to insult the Midwest or the South, if you are. The problem is widespread. Midwesterners may well be better mannered about things, I do not know, but if you go to a state like Illinois with a famous university and minority population they may still be bumblefuck farmers but in my experience they were good people.
And Texas. Austin, the capital, is a tech city. It is awesome. Living there was a blessing, having lived there is a curse. I intend to return.
Here I am in upstate NY is full of ****. What matters most importantly is tech & science & engineering literacy not the soft stuff. Art and literature are grand and all that but what dumbasses fail to realize is that people in the sciences are not only better off and more capable but are often inclined to these soft things as well.. and also do them better. The future rests on bright shoulders, would they be of these men and women.
Of course I have made this topic tremendously personal, and have not said much nor said it well. I apologize <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> but this is a <i>dire</i> problem. The scientifically illiterate produce fools who think they are better than you. Yes, I am an elitist. I also believe in people's potential and prefer to give people a chance. But if a fool you deserve to DIE XD
PS The main problem is not religion but the character of people and the nature of their lives.
Of course I have made this topic tremendously personal, and have not said much nor said it well. I apologize <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> but this is a <i>dire</i> problem. The scientifically illiterate produce fools who think they are better than you. Yes, I am an elitist. I also believe in people's potential and prefer to give people a chance. But if a fool you deserve to DIE XD
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please go back to Texas. The further away from me the better.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->PS The main problem is not religion but the character of people and the nature of their lives.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Precisely. Who are you to tell people that if they do not dig tech and industry their lives are as good as forfeit? I think that's pretty dogmatic and smacks of religion to a large degree. We worship the Test Tube! The Bunsen Burner is our Saviour.