Are you scientifically literate?

[Audley Strange]

48 out of 50...

Kicked myself over the two I got wrong...

It is precisely the sort of quiz that science teachers should get 100% in...

Beat you by 1!

Which did you get wrong?

Heisenberg instead of Planck ("h") and one other that I've forgotten...

(it may have been the wrong greek letter for something or other)

I ought to try my hand at making a maths/science quiz that is more oriented to problem solving...

Good idea - I got the Eris one wrong. I clicked on Charon and submit and knew it was wrong before it told me!

Expect Discordian fundamentalists to upset your underwear drawer.

[Audley Strange]

Remembering or knowing stuff is a necessary, but perhaps not sufficient condition to understanding. You may, for example, have rote recall of items without understanding context. However, without knowing or remembering, we can certainly conclude that understanding is necessarily lacking.

However, the test tests more than mere rote memory, or chimp-like push the button and a banana appears conditioning. It tests understanding of terms and a variety of concepts.

I would never claim it to be a perfect test of literacy. It's just a 50 question test. However, to make the suggestion that there is no connection between being able to ace the 50 questions, and getting only 1/2 of them right, as to who knows more basic information about science, is a bit naive. Why bother having tests in school then? If what some folks are saying is the case, then knowing a lot of things about a subject is no indication that one has any knowledge of the subject.

Oh I'm not suggesting that one doesn't need some knowledge to answer the quiz, but I reject that it is a quiz that proves scientific literacy. For example I think many people could recognise that Einstein's theory of relativity was "E=mc2" but I'd think a great many less could tell you what the symbols meant and what was meant by "relativity". The former folks may well have a stunning general knowledge, may have information coming out their ears about other stuff, even though they have not a clue about science.

I have said now I got 38, but I didn't even consider most of the answers, the clues made it so obvious for many and for others it was an easy process of elimination. Now without bragging, I think that doing so does show a form of practical intelligence, but not scientific literacy. I don't consider myself scientifically literate. I know some famous concepts and have a smattering of biology and physics, but I'm not that into it. Conversely I don't know many people who could be considered literate in Twelfth Century German Christianity, but I wouldn't suggest they were dumb or it was sour grapes if they didn't ace a test which said things like "Near which colourful German forest which has a famous cherry based cake after it
were the Hohenstaufen Dynasty of Holy Roman Emperors based?"

In saying that, I don't think we are disagreeing about much.

[Coito ergo sum]

CES,

I'm not saying that knowledge of scientific facts isn't a component of scientific literacy. I'm saying there is a hell of a lot more to science literacy than the ability to spit out random science facts and definitions on demand.

Yes, but if you don't even know the facts and definitions, then it's pretty clear that you can't know the "hell of a lot more" necessary for scientific literacy.

Question:

Who do you consider to be more scientifically literate: a person who can tell you that we traditionally use the Greek mu as the symbol for coefficient of friction, but cannot solve friction problems? Or the person who has forgotten that mu is the symbol for COF, but can tell you how far a block will slide across a table, given all the necessary variables required to solve the problem?

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?

It's exactly what you and I seem to both agree on. The knowledge of what "mu" is used for is not automatically going to make you know how to use the formula for how far a block will slide, given friction, acceleration due to gravity, etc. But, it is a necessary prerequisite to solving the problem. There aren't any other widely used formulas, and the odds of someone knowing the formula necessary without knowing the symbols is unlikely.

I mean - in a different context, how likely is it that a person is going to be a good communicator if they don't know the words? Sure, we can give a 50 question vocabulary test and say that just because someone gets 45 of them right, that doesn't mean they have a better grip on the English language than someone who gets 25 of them right. But, if I were a bettin' man, I'd be willing to be that people who are proficient in the english language really do have wider vocabularies. Could someone be a savant with rote memory of words, but no ability to create syntax? Sure. But, is that really likely?

And, again, no one question is determinative. Does forgetting mu, or most of the equations in newtonian physics make you "scientifically illiiterate"? No, of course not. But, more demonstrable knowledge would seem to me to be a good indicator of greater literacy, and less demonstrable knowledge would seem to be an indicator of less literacy.

[Coito ergo sum]

I got a 35! But this was Trivial Pursuit, not scientific litteracy?

Don't knock trivial pursuit, those who are more literate in the topics covered in Trivial Pursuit tend to do better.

Where does this idea come from that the capacity to demonstrate knowledge doesn't indicate knowledge?

[normal]

I got a 35! But this was Trivial Pursuit, not scientific litteracy?

Don't knock trivial pursuit, those who are more literate in the topics covered in Trivial Pursuit tend to do better.

Where does this idea come from that the capacity to demonstrate knowledge doesn't indicate knowledge?

Not sure!

[Coito ergo sum]

Remembering or knowing stuff is a necessary, but perhaps not sufficient condition to understanding. You may, for example, have rote recall of items without understanding context. However, without knowing or remembering, we can certainly conclude that understanding is necessarily lacking.

However, the test tests more than mere rote memory, or chimp-like push the button and a banana appears conditioning. It tests understanding of terms and a variety of concepts.

I would never claim it to be a perfect test of literacy. It's just a 50 question test. However, to make the suggestion that there is no connection between being able to ace the 50 questions, and getting only 1/2 of them right, as to who knows more basic information about science, is a bit naive. Why bother having tests in school then? If what some folks are saying is the case, then knowing a lot of things about a subject is no indication that one has any knowledge of the subject.

Oh I'm not suggesting that one doesn't need some knowledge to answer the quiz, but I reject that it is a quiz that proves scientific literacy. For example I think many people could recognise that Einstein's theory of relativity was "E=mc2" but I'd think a great many less could tell you what the symbols meant and what was meant by "relativity". The former folks may well have a stunning general knowledge, may have information coming out their ears about other stuff, even though they have not a clue about science.

Proves conclusively? No.

Is it an indicator? Yes, absolutely. People who are more scientifically literate will do better on that test.

It may be more of an indicator of scientific illiteracy than literacy. Surely, if one was not able to get 50% of that test right, the odds of them being a science wiz are pretty slim, no?

Regarding your Einstein example - yes, many folks who don't know dick about science will know E=mc2 and won't even know what the symbols mean. But, anyone who doesn't know E=mc2 has at least one strike against them if they are claiming scientific literacy. Knowing E=mc2 is probably a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to claim literacy - but, someone who is like "duh - I don't know, never heard of E=mc2" or "that Europa is a moon of Jupiter" isn't paying much attention. I doubt they're very literate. Naturally, again, no one question means anything, but if wrong answers are repeated 25 times out of 50, and the questions are pretty basic, what does that tell you? It tells me that someone hasn't been paying much attention...

I have said now I got 38, but I didn't even consider most of the answers, the clues made it so obvious for many and for others it was an easy process of elimination. Now without bragging, I think that doing so does show a form of practical intelligence, but not scientific literacy. I don't consider myself scientifically literate. I know some famous concepts and have a smattering of biology and physics, but I'm not that into it.

That description probably puts you in the top 20% of Americans as far as scientific literacy. Most Americans are so fucking clueless that it is embarrassing. They don't even know famous concepts, or anything close to a "smattering" of biology and physics.

Conversely I don't know many people who could be considered literate in Twelfth Century German Christianity, but I wouldn't suggest they were dumb

That, I think, is the genesis of the resistance to think that tests mean anything. People don't want to feel dumb. Well, just because you don't have knowledge in a particular subject doesn't make a person dumb. One, intelligence and education are two different things, although there is some overlap since education generally comes easier to intelligent people. Two, I wouldn't describe someone who has good knowledge in history, religion, geography and the game of Poker to be dumb just because they don't know science - but, if one's deficiencies are far reaching to the point of knowing jack shit about most major areas of education, then that might be an indicator that one's bulb is not burning too brightly.

But, the test used the term "scientific literacy," not "dumb." A scientific illiterate, or even a person who is illiterate in the primary form of being unable to read and write, isn't necessary "dumb." A person who never learned to read and write could have an IQ of 200, but they never were taught, like Helen Keller as a child. She didn't know shit about a lot of stuff, but wasn't "dumb." "Dumbness" is not the point here.

or it was sour grapes if they didn't ace a test which said things like "Near which colourful German forest which has a famous cherry based cake after it
were the Hohenstaufen Dynasty of Holy Roman Emperors based?"

I think that there are certain areas of knowledge that an educated, literate person in our culture ought to know something about. Science is one of them. There are many others. Math is another -- that's why I want to smack the shit out of someone who laughs about not being able to add or multiply. Are they "dumb" if they never learned their "cipherin'"? It's conceivable that they are not. However, they certainly aren't mathematically literate. If that makes a person of normal intelligence upset or offended, well, go to the library and open a book and learn something, I say.

In saying that, I don't think we are disagreeing about much.

I'd agree with that.

[Audley Strange]

Right on CES. I concur.

Though I'm of the "we just all fill our brains with different shit" school of education. Granted if you have an encyclopedic knowledge about sports that might be less useful as a whole than say an encyclopedic knowledge of plumbing or engineering, but in context of perhaps a sports columnist, you might come across as a genius.

And don't be so hard on your fellow citizens mate, indolence and ignorance are international.

[JimC]

In terms of my science and maths students over the years, I would say that it is pretty vital for them to develop an extensive vocabulary and a good factual base, and very few will succeed without it. In maths, the equivalent is a broad range of process skills, such as "solving quadratic equations". You have to have a good range of well polished tools in your toolbar...

However, by itself that is not enough to reach the really high levels. Being curious, exploratory, highly motivated and having the ability to find sneaky, left-field ways to enter a complex problem are what separates the good from the great...

[Seabass]

CES,

I'm not saying that knowledge of scientific facts isn't a component of scientific literacy. I'm saying there is a hell of a lot more to science literacy than the ability to spit out random science facts and definitions on demand.

Yes, but if you don't even know the facts and definitions, then it's pretty clear that you can't know the "hell of a lot more" necessary for scientific literacy.

Question:

Who do you consider to be more scientifically literate: a person who can tell you that we traditionally use the Greek mu as the symbol for coefficient of friction, but cannot solve friction problems? Or the person who has forgotten that mu is the symbol for COF, but can tell you how far a block will slide across a table, given all the necessary variables required to solve the problem?

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?

It's exactly what you and I seem to both agree on. The knowledge of what "mu" is used for is not automatically going to make you know how to use the formula for how far a block will slide, given friction, acceleration due to gravity, etc. But, it is a necessary prerequisite to solving the problem. There aren't any other widely used formulas, and the odds of someone knowing the formula necessary without knowing the symbols is unlikely.

I mean - in a different context, how likely is it that a person is going to be a good communicator if they don't know the words? Sure, we can give a 50 question vocabulary test and say that just because someone gets 45 of them right, that doesn't mean they have a better grip on the English language than someone who gets 25 of them right. But, if I were a bettin' man, I'd be willing to be that people who are proficient in the english language really do have wider vocabularies. Could someone be a savant with rote memory of words, but no ability to create syntax? Sure. But, is that really likely?

And, again, no one question is determinative. Does forgetting mu, or most of the equations in newtonian physics make you "scientifically illiiterate"? No, of course not. But, more demonstrable knowledge would seem to me to be a good indicator of greater literacy, and less demonstrable knowledge would seem to be an indicator of less literacy.

Ok, bad example. I can't remember any friction formulas either.

But the point I'm trying to make... actually, two points:

First, there is a distinction between being scientifically illiterate, and being scientifically rusty. Once upon a time, I knew how to solve friction problems. Once upon a time, I knew what a eukaryote was. However, at age thirty seven, this knowledge has long since receded from memory.

Second, I think it is easier to retain concepts than it is to retain trivia. For example, twenty years after graduation, one might still retain a pretty good understanding of how radioactive dating works without necessarily being able to recall the half-life of carbon-14. And I would say that conceptual understanding is more important that trivia retention.

[Coito ergo sum]

Ok, bad example. I can't remember any friction formulas either.

But the point I'm trying to make... actually, two points:

First, there is a distinction between being science illiterate, and being rusty. Once upon a time, I knew how to solve friction problems. Once upon a time, I knew what a eukaryote was. However, at age thirty seven, this knowledge has long since receded from memory.

Well, that's why the test is more about science literacy than proficiency. You are still science literate, even if you can't solve all those physics problems in your head. Being science literate is just about knowing a fair bit about science. 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."

Second, I think it is easier to retain concepts than it is to retain trivia. For example, twenty years after graduation, one might still retain a pretty good understanding of how radioactive dating works without necessarily being able to recall the half-life of carbon-14. And I would say that conceptual understanding is more important that trivia retention.

This is a false distinction. Much of what the 50 questions asked about were concepts.

The point really is that a person who is more literate or knowledgeable in a subject will generally be able to answer more questions correctly. Folks that know a lot about a subject, do better on tests about that subject. That's the whole underpinnings of testing in the first place. People who do bad on tests want to find reasons to explain it other than that they didn't really know much of the material. Most of the time, they're just rationalizing.

[Seabass]

Much of what the 50 questions asked about were concepts.

I disagree.

"Which Greek letter do we use to symbolize coefficient of friction?" isn't about a concept, it's a trivia question. Most of the questions were of a similar nature.

[Coito ergo sum]

Much of what the 50 questions asked about were concepts.

I disagree.

"Which Greek letter do we use to symbolize coefficient of friction?" isn't about a concept, it's a trivia question. Most of the questions were of a similar nature.

Much of =/= all of.

All questions boil down to trivia when worded in multiple choice format. The fact remains, people who know more about a subject tend to do better on multiple choice tests about the subject.

And, whether someone knew the letter mu was used does indicate some base of knowledge, because it's very hard to know the formula, or how to figure out how far a block will slide, if you don't know the formula, and mu is part of the formula.

Anyway, does knowing mu tell us for sure that someone is scientifically literate? No. But, it does tend to show that the person doesn't know what the coefficient of friction is. That alone doesn't answer the literacy question. It's just one small brick. Go through 50 questions, and if you don't know jack shit, it would be safe to say that you're not as literate as the guy who gets 49 out of 50 correct.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I think many people could recognise that Einstein's theory of relativity was "E=mc2"

Actually, most people would phrase it very much like that - and they would be wrong to do so.

E=mc2 is NOT Einstein's theory of relativity. It is Einstein's equation of Mass-Energy Equivalence. It is a consequence of Einstein's theory of special relativity (and an important one - the one that makes atom bombs work) but was proposed in a separate paper after SR.

[Svartalf]

Much of what the 50 questions asked about were concepts.

I disagree.

"Which Greek letter do we use to symbolize coefficient of friction?" isn't about a concept, it's a trivia question. Most of the questions were of a similar nature.

That particular one stumped me, because I simply had no clue about the answer, my education never having covered that particular bit.
I did successfully answer several other questions not because I knew the answer right away, but from deducing or reconstructing the answer from the clues in the question, and the proposed answers (nearly forgot that radon was a noble gas, though)

[Audley Strange]

I think many people could recognise that Einstein's theory of relativity was "E=mc2"

Actually, most people would phrase it very much like that - and they would be wrong to do so.

E=mc2 is NOT Einstein's theory of relativity. It is Einstein's equation of Mass-Energy Equivalence. It is a consequence of Einstein's theory of special relativity (and an important one - the one that makes atom bombs work) but was proposed in a separate paper after SR.

Thank you for emphasising my point that general knowledge is not the same as scientific knowledge.

And of course, I knew that.