Are you scientifically literate?

[Warren Dew]

I think that the second person can't solve the problem without knowing the symbol for mu, unless of course that person is using some other symbol, which is highly unlikely, or unless that person knows the entire formula, except doesn't remember the symbols. How many people out there can calculate the distance of a sliding block without knowing the formula for doing it?

All of my personal friends can. It's trivially easy to rederive. Why would one waste brain space memorizing it?

The quiz was very easy. If you don't get 70% or more on it, then it's not just "being rusty" -- it's more like "not knowing much."

Well, it's more like "not knowing much scientific trivia." And the breakpoint should be 90% or more, not 70% or more.

[Warren Dew]

We have 8 planets. Earth is 365, so that's out. 5 of them are farther out than Earth, leaving Venus and Mars. It's a 50-50 guess, at worst, but I would have chosen Venus due to remembering that Venus was something in the 200s.

Mars is inside the orbit of Earth now? No wonder it has the same surface gravity as Mercury!

Seriously, this process of figuring it out is exactly why that would be more of a science question.

[Warren Dew]

Why the fuck have they chosen to use the most time-consuming way of completing a multi-choice quiz?

It's really a quiz to see how patient people are.

Pretty much. How are we going to have the experience of instantly knowing we misclicked if we aren't first made bored and impatient?

[JimC]

I think that it's very important not to polarise on the question of knowing vocab and factual stuff, vs skills in analysing data, making connections and drawing inferences. A science course that only dealt with the first (and some do...) would be trivial and a poor preparation for further studies.

However, it is undeniable that the very best students of science and maths usually do both; they accumulate a good technical vocabulary, and they also have the ability to ask questions, to solve problems by applying knowledge to unfamiliar situations, and similar higher level skills. Such skills work at their best in the context of a broad foundation of background knowledge, and the confidence in having a substantial tool-kit of mathematical skills.

[Warren Dew]

I think that exposure to factual material is useful, but memorization of it is often of limited additional use. If you know it's there, you can always look it up. It's the stuff that you don't know that you don't know that bites you.

I also think there's a difference between knowing facts and knowing the vocabulary. Knowing the facts saves the trouble of looking them up, which is useful in the context of one's specialty or of a problem one is actively working on. Knowing the vocabulary is only important in communication, which while central to teaching, isn't the main focus when conducting research.

[MiM]

I think that exposure to factual material is useful, but memorization of it is often of limited additional use. If you know it's there, you can always look it up. It's the stuff that you don't know that you don't know that bites you.

I also think there's a difference between knowing facts and knowing the vocabulary. Knowing the facts saves the trouble of looking them up, which is useful in the context of one's specialty or of a problem one is actively working on. Knowing the vocabulary is only important in communication, which while central to teaching, isn't the main focus when conducting research.

1. How are you going to look up your facts, if you don not know the vocabulary to look for?
2. Research is completely worthless if you cannot communicate your results to others.

[Warren Dew]

1. How are you going to look up your facts, if you don not know the vocabulary to look for?

You can search on the conceptual description rather than the term. In fact, I'd bet that searching on "friction" will get you useful information faster than searching on "mu".

2. Research is completely worthless if you cannot communicate your results to others.

That doesn't change the fact that it still typically takes many more man hours to run an experiment or to develop a theory than to write up the results.