Posted on 02/17/2007 2:48:54 PM PST by NormsRevenge
People in the U.S. know more about basic science today than they did two decades ago, good news that researchers say is tempered by an unsettling growth in the belief in pseudoscience such as astrology and visits by extraterrestrial aliens.
In 1988 only about 10 percent knew enough about science to understand reports in major newspapers, a figure that grew to 28 percent by 2005, according to Jon D. Miller, a Michigan State University professor. He presented his findings Saturday at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
The improvement largely reflects the requirement that all college students have at least some science courses, Miller said. This way, they can better keep up with new developments through the media.
A panel of researchers expressed concern that people are giving increasing credence to pseudoscience such as the visits of space aliens, lucky numbers and horoscopes.
In addition, these researchers noted an increase in college students who report they are "unsure" about creationism as compared with evolution.
More recent generations know more factual material about science, said Carol Susan Losh, an associate professor at Florida State University. But, she said, when it comes to pseudoscience, "the news is not good."
One problem, she said, is that pseudoscience can speak to the meaning of life in ways that science does not.
For example, for many women having a good life still depends on whom they marry, she said.
"What does astrology speak to? Love relationships," Losh said, noting that belief in horoscopes is much higher among women than men.
The disclosure that former first lady Nancy Reagan consulted an astrologer resulted in widespread derision in the media, but few younger people remember that episode today, she said.
Miller said most readers of horoscopes are women, contributing to the listing of "female" as a leading negative factor in science literacy. Women also tended to take fewer college science courses, he said.
Belief in abduction by space aliens is also on the rise, Losh said.
"It's not surprising that the generation that grew up on 'Twilight Zone' and early 'Star Trek' television endorsed a link between UFOs and alien spacecraft," she said.
Pseudoscience discussion is often absent from the classroom, Losh said, so "we have basically left it up to the media."
Raymond Eve of the University of Texas at Arlington had mixed news in surveys of students at an unnamed Midwestern university.
The share that believed aliens had visited Earth fell from 25 percent in 1983 to 15 percent in 2006. There was also a decline in belief in "Bigfoot" and in whether psychics can predict the future.
But there also has been a drop in the number of people who believe evolution correctly explains the development of life on Earth and an increase in those who believe mankind was created about 10,000 years ago.
Miller said a second major negative factor to scientific literacy was religious fundamentalism and aging.
Having taken college science courses was a strong positive influence, followed by overall education and informal science learning through the media. Having children at home also resulted in adults being more scientifically informed, he said.
Nick Allum of the University of Surry in England suggested belief in astrology might be a simple misunderstanding of the question, with people confusing astrology with astronomy.
In one European study about 25 percent of people said they thought astrology was very scientific. But when the question was rephrased to horoscopes that fell to about 7 percent.
Links:
http://www.aaas.org/
Oh yes, the media will give them some straight up scientific view points, maybe even help them understand global warming.
Even 28% is pathetic.
And the standard for 28% is the level of science found in major newspapers???
More than pathetic.
I would dearly love to hear how this conclusion was derived.
This statement leads me to suspect that the way the questions were phrased and the possible answers limited, led to a non-sensical result.
In my entire life I have not met a single person who believes the earth was created about 10,000 years ago.
Set out to find the insane and, sure enough...
I wonder how much of that increase can be accounted for, unfortunately, but dumbing down of the news media stories?
A truly astounding result, considering that the number of reporters writing about science get at least part of their facts wrong in over half of their articles.
Check out any article about Global Warming.
Or second-hand smoke.
Or the incidence of poverty.
Or articles about food irradiation.
Or weekly reports about a limitless power source.
Or...
Schools could strongly improve the knowledge of science by emphasizing a simple fact:
Science is like the game of chess. If you play a game of chess by the rules, you have *only* played a game of chess by the rules. If you do not play by the rules, you have not played a game of chess, even if you used chess pieces on a chess board.
Science has very defined rules. If you conduct an experiment while following those rules, *all* you have done is conduct an scientific experiment. If you do not follow the rules, what you have done is *not* science, even if it has all the trappings of a scientific experiment.
This is called "The scientific method."
All a scientific experiment proves is that someone else, anywhere in the world, following the same scientific rules to conduct the same experiment, *should* get the same results that you did.
Science does not define the universe. It is just an abstract to describe the universe. Like math is an abstract to describe the universe. They are like a picture of an apple--they are a picture, not the apple itself.
And science does not take into account all possible variables. Only the most likely are accounted for in the rules of the experiment. Other variables exist, but are intentionally ignored.
So when someone tells you that something is scientific, or that something is "proven", that is only the case when has been determined by the rules of science, and the experiments that "proved" it, have been proven by others in the same way that they were proven before.
It doesn't matter even if a million people think something. Even if they swear by it. Unless it is proven by scientific experiment, it is not science. Importantly, this does not mean it isn't true, just that it is not scientific.
Perhaps you've not met them, but there a a fair number here on FreeRepublic.
Wonder whether the study somehow controlled for the dumbing down of reports in (and reporters for) major newspapers...
Nor have I, though I have met quite a few young-earth fundies who believe (with Bishop Ussher) that it was created in 4004 BC.
In understanding fundamentalism, it helps to know the definition of fundament.
-ccm
I took that test and, after the first question, figured out how to game it. But it's not a very good test. Some of the questions even contradict one another.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.