Are you scientifically literate?

[Coito ergo sum]

43/50 - This test is mostly a case of "Can you remember what you learned at school?" Though I don't remember ever doing Bernoulli's principle, which is surprising because I did A-level physics . - and the rest I got wrong were remembering random names of things, which I've never been good at.

.

The biggest chunk of being literate in any subject is remembering things. Remembering things may well be the most important aspect of being literate.

[Coito ergo sum]

I realise its not a science quiz really. If your question is "which planet NAMED AFTER THE GODDESS OF LOVE, has a solar orbit of 224 days? You're just asking the name of a planet named after the goddess of love. Then when dupes get the answer right they think they're one of them Heisenbergs. I got 38, simply from answering the obvious question quickly. At best its testing your general knowledge.

I agree with that. The test wasn't all that great. It was also fairly easy. Of the 6 I got wrong, 4 of them were boneheaded goofs where I clicked the wrong thing and immediately knew I had gone too fast and knee-jerked the wrong answer. A couple of them I just didn't know. My science education goes through college, though, so what I think is "easy" might well be just a reflection on 2 semesters of university level chemistry, 3 semesters of physics, astronomy, general biology, and other university level sciencey-like courses. I sometimes assume that everyone takes that stuff in college, and I have to force myself to acknowledge that the vast majority of university students don't take much science at all.

Correct, because they're... re not science students. I was a B. Comm. - a business student. Apart from brief forays into matters statistical, I don't think we went next nor near science. Neither would Law students, or the majority of Arts (humanities) students.

I think that certain subjects are important to being an educated person, irrespective of whether one makes a career out of them. In the olden days, that was called a classical education, in which the arts and sciences/philosophies were taught generally to educate. I see very little downside in students taking basic sciences, mathematics and such fields, and I think an engineer and a marketer and a journalist would do well to have a basic education in these areas. I feel the same way about sciencey folks like lab techs, chemists, engineers the like - they ought to have a basic education in literature, philosophy, and other such liberal arts classes, and I think they don't get enough.

I feel that in the area of mathematics and science, our education system has failed the vast majority of Americans, because not only don't they generally know much about those areas, and not only are most university graduates really deficient in those areas, but we've become a society that revels in and almost enjoys being ignorant of those subjects. It is a pet peeve of mine to hear someone on the news or elsewhere in the media/entertainment field, or among my friend, laugh and joke about not knowing much about math or science. "Ha ha ha -- I can't multiply two numbers together..." I almost instinctively want to smack them across the face. That's not funny. That's fucking sad. You can't do basic math? Can you read too? Would it be funny if you couldn't read?

And, the way science is portrayed in the media -- like it's either mad scientists and evil geniuses, or geeky nerds. Being smart is hardly ever portrayed as something folks should strive to be, and in some circles high intelligence or intellectualism is seen as a negative or something to be suspicious of.

[Atheist-Lite]

I was put off by the anal slowness of the thing, and since most of the answers are facts rather than a understanding of scientifical methologues I figured it was testing memory retention rather than anything to do with scientific literacy.

[klr]

I was put off by the anal slowness of the thing, and since most of the answers are facts rather than a understanding of scientifical methologues I figured it was testing memory retention rather than anything to do with scientific literacy.

So you won't tell us your score then?

[Atheist-Lite]

I was put off by the anal slowness of the thing, and since most of the answers are facts rather than a understanding of scientifical methologues I figured it was testing memory retention rather than anything to do with scientific literacy.

So you won't tell us your score then?

I stopped at 11/13...wasn't willing to squander any more of my precious life on a Christian Monitor questionaire.

[klr]

I was put off by the anal slowness of the thing, and since most of the answers are facts rather than a understanding of scientifical methologues I figured it was testing memory retention rather than anything to do with scientific literacy.

So you won't tell us your score then?

I stopped at 11/13...wasn't willing to squander any more of my precious life on a Christian Monitor questionaire.

It's not really a "Christian" publication, not as we know it.

[Atheist-Lite]

I was put off by the anal slowness of the thing, and since most of the answers are facts rather than a understanding of scientifical methologues I figured it was testing memory retention rather than anything to do with scientific literacy.

So you won't tell us your score then?

I stopped at 11/13...wasn't willing to squander any more of my precious life on a Christian Monitor questionaire.

It's not really a "Christian" publication, not as we know it.

That's what they always say to get a foot in the door.

[Tyrannical]

So far so good. I'll post my score once I finish.
The age of the earth question did make me think, it be CSM and all.

[Coito ergo sum]

I was put off by the anal slowness of the thing, and since most of the answers are facts rather than a understanding of scientifical methologues I figured it was testing memory retention rather than anything to do with scientific literacy.

There seems to be a number of people who think that knowing things is not related to whether one is literate in a subject. I've heard this before - often folks who don't know much about a subject claim to be smart anyway, they're just not "book smart," or they "don't test well." No, folks. It's not that you're not "book smart," you're just not smart. And, it's not a matter of generally inability to test, it's that you don't know the material. If you knew the material, you'd test just fine.

[Tyrannical]

40/50
not too shabby.
Though I'm sure at one point I did learn all that stuff.

[Audley Strange]

Can I just say I'm not actually maligning the quiz, even if it seems that way? It's as bit of fun sure, but if it makes one adult or child think they are smart enough about science, where they previously lacked confidence, to go and learn some more, it's done it's job. I am of the opinion that most people are smarter than they give themselves credit for, just not in all subjects simultaneously.

[Audley Strange]

43/50 - This test is mostly a case of "Can you remember what you learned at school?" Though I don't remember ever doing Bernoulli's principle, which is surprising because I did A-level physics . - and the rest I got wrong were remembering random names of things, which I've never been good at.

.

The biggest chunk of being literate in any subject is remembering things. Remembering things may well be the most important aspect of being literate.

I disagree Coito. Cognition, understanding of material I think. It's not necessary to understand meaning to remember answers. I'd refer you to the Chinese Box idea.

[PsychoSerenity]

43/50 - This test is mostly a case of "Can you remember what you learned at school?" Though I don't remember ever doing Bernoulli's principle, which is surprising because I did A-level physics . - and the rest I got wrong were remembering random names of things, which I've never been good at.

.

The biggest chunk of being literate in any subject is remembering things. Remembering things may well be the most important aspect of being literate.

I disagree Coito. Cognition, understanding of material I think. It's not necessary to understand meaning to remember answers. I'd refer you to the Chinese Box idea.

One of the questions I was unsure about was: "Newton's First Law of Motion describes what phenomenon?" - Because I never learned them in terms of first, second and third. I recognise all three of them and I understand them in terms of diagrams and equations, what they mean and how they are used. But first, second and third is just irrelevant information, - if anything I was reading referred to one of them only in those terms (which is unlikely anyway) I'd look it up, or work it out from context.

[maiforpeace]

I failed miserably, lets' just say it's the first F I've ever gotten.

[Ronja]

43/50 - This test is mostly a case of "Can you remember what you learned at school?" Though I don't remember ever doing Bernoulli's principle, which is surprising because I did A-level physics . - and the rest I got wrong were remembering random names of things, which I've never been good at.

.

The biggest chunk of being literate in any subject is remembering things. Remembering things may well be the most important aspect of being literate.

I beg to disagree, to some degree. To be literate, one has to remember the basics, of course. But:

when it comes to physics and mathematics at least (and IMO also biology), understanding the basic concepts and the nature of various phenomena and how they relate to each other, and being able to deduce various more complex equations and relations from those basics is much, much more important than storing it all in memory, without getting the significance of (much of) it.

For example, I guessed wrong the question about mitosis and meiosis, because I no more remembered the names of the stages - but I don't worry too much about that, because I know I know the difference between mitosis and meiosis and the biological & reproductive significance of that. For example, if I am reading a text about mitosis and/or meiosis I can check the names of the stages in one minute from Wikipedia (which I just did), and then go on to read the text with little risk of misunderstanding, whereas someone who has only memorized that mitosis consists of the stages prophase, metaphase, anaphase, and telophase and meiosis consists of the same stages repeated twice, but does not understand the significance of that (meiotic cell division leads to halving of the number of chromosomes, the basis of stable sexual reproduction) would likely have much greater difficulties in understanding a text about mitosis vs. meiosis.