Are you scientifically literate?

[Atheist-Lite]

Ultimately a quiz like this is polarizing in that those few with confidence based on a keen interest, a sound education or good memory will do well and achieve positive feedback, whilst the greater majority who are guilty of a sub-standard education or some learning issues will have confirmation that science isn't for them.

[Ronja]

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.

Ditto for me. I got the "First" right only through lucky guess, even though I have studied all basic laws of mechanics at college level and still understand all of them.

I *hated* the only course (= class or module - depending on where you are) in Internet and intellectual property (IP) law that I had to take for my M.Sc. major, because the exam was predictably filled with questions like "In the case Smith vs. Jones 2002, what was the significance of the employment status of Jones?" Dammit, I knew the material well and was genuinely interested, but I have never been able to recall well stuff that is referenced to by a seemingly arbitrary name or number. If they had asked e.g. "Explain what difference it makes for IP rights whether the person who makes the innovation is employed or a contractor and whether (s)he comes up with the idea as a part of the employed/contracted work or in her/his spare time. Illustrate with examples." I would have been fine. But they didn't, so I only got a 4 of 5.

[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.

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.

If you don't remember stuff, how can you ever show that you understand a subject?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I see nobody's beat my score yet.

[Ronja]

Coito, I think the "can you remember it" problem has a lot to do with that different people remember things most efficiently and most exactly through different mechanisms. Some can connect a seemingly endless number of (even fairly random) alphabet and/or numeral based labels to facts and their relationships, whereas others need to be asked specifically about the relationship and/or the context to be able to remember. I belong firmly to the later group (and am a member of the Mensa, and my GPA has always been close to or over 90 %, whatever I have been studying). Memory is a rather personal ability/talent/skill, like most things that have to do with the brain.

[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.

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.

That seems weird. Newtons laws of motion are universally described in terms of First, Second and Third. And, of course, that is just one question. Hardly anyone will get every one right, and you got the vast majority right, so you have, in fact, remembered quite a bit. Even really smart people will forget or have a brain fart over one item here or there. But, if you have that same "forgetting" or "brain fart" on 25 of the questions out of 50, then it seems very likely that the problem is that you just don't know that much.

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.

Sure, and it's the depth of your knowledge which leads you to get almost all of the questions right.

If you got only 50% of the questions right, the odds are you wouldn't understand the material in such great depth as you plainly do. It's pretty rare, in my experience, that someone just flat out can't remember much in terms of actually words and principles, but has the concepts nailed down to a great depth. Part of the ability to "know" anything is to think in words and in mathematics. If over and over again, you don't remember basic physics concepts, then it becomes more and more likely that you don't know much about physics. If you get a few wrong here and there, because you don't remember what order something came in, or the name slips your mind, then that's one thing - if it's the norm, it's quite another.

It's kind of like how in history, people make the absurd claim that it's unnecessary to know when things happened, and remember the names of people and places, or to know the chronology of events of things. All that is necessary, we are told by some, is to know "why" things happened, and the reasons for them, and the basic concepts. I feel that is a crock of shit, plain and simple, because I think it's evident that without a basic knowledge of who, what, where and when, that you really can't have a good understanding of why and how. It's obviously always going to be the case that you won't remember exact dates for everything, and you may just be close on years and such, but anyone really knowledgeable in history is going to have a pretty good chronology of events, major personages, and such, so that historical events can be understood in context. You can only "understand" a context if you "know" the context, and the context is made up of person, places, and events. If it's all a big jumble, then the context is actually lost.

I think that sort of thing is true in any subject.

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito, I think the "can you remember it" problem has a lot to do with that different people remember things most efficiently and most exactly through different mechanisms. Some can connect a seemingly endless number of (even fairly random) alphabet and/or numeral based labels to facts and their relationships, whereas others need to be asked specifically about the relationship and/or the context to be able to remember. I belong firmly to the later group (and am a member of the Mensa, and my GPA has always been close to or over 90 %, whatever I have been studying). Memory is a rather personal ability/talent/skill, like most things that have to do with the brain.

We may be talking about the difference between intelligence and education.

If one is educated in a subject, one ought to have some recall about that subject and know a good deal about it. If one doesn't, then one may well be super-smart, but just not educated in that particular subject. Like, the genius engineer who doesn't know shit about English literature.

If you say you know something about English literature, and then you take a multiple choice test about English literature and you get most of the questions wrong, and the questions related to major English writers and literary works, then I don't think it unreasonable to conclude that the test taker really doesn't know that much about English literature.

If, however, a person is, in fact, well-educated in English literature, it's very likely that he will know a good deal about it.

Is that really controversial?

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

Ditto for me. I got the "First" right only through lucky guess, even though I have studied all basic laws of mechanics at college level and still understand all of them.

:

That is why testing isn't about one question, but a percentage of a great number of questions, and I haven't seen anyone here claim to get all 50 correct. Some of the ones I got wrong gave me a Homer Simpson "doh!" moment.

Persons educated in a subject do tend to get more of the "lucky guesses" right, though. Someone who knows enough about a subject to consistently eliminate 2 of the 4 multiple choice answers betters his odds of a right answer to 50% from 25%. Very well read folks on a topic will wind up knowing a good many right off the bat, and being able to puzzle out a good many by process of elimination, and the balance will be 50-50 guesses with a few only being pure 25% guesses. Someone who takes a test blind, not having any knowledge of a topic may be lucky enough to have heard some of the information and by happenstance know the answer, but the lion's share will be guesses.

Overally - take enough tests in Astronomy, and the good students will consistently do good. Those who know a subject will know the subject. That's axiomatic. Those who consistently do bad -- how likely is it that they really know the subject?

[maiforpeace]

Ultimately a quiz like this is polarizing in that those few with confidence based on a keen interest, a sound education or good memory will do well and achieve positive feedback, whilst the greater majority who are guilty of a sub-standard education or some learning issues will have confirmation that science isn't for them.

I'm turning 55 at the end of the month, so here's my explanation.

[Coito ergo sum]

Ultimately a quiz like this is polarizing in that those few with confidence based on a keen interest, a sound education or good memory will do well and achieve positive feedback, whilst the greater majority who are guilty of a sub-standard education or some learning issues will have confirmation that science isn't for them.

Nothing is for everybody.

However, I have found that often a failure to be educated in a subject is as much a lack of perspiration than any other factor.

But, we also can never escape the realization of how stupid the average person is, or the horror that something like 1/2 the population is stupider even than that.

[Atheist-Lite]

That questionaire was a general science questionaire and did not test a specific area of expertise. The questions were fragmentary and out of context and a big jumble. You have torpedoed your own argument Coito I'm afraid.

[klr]

I'm with CES here. Some of the questions relate to topics where it is highly unlikely that one's knowledge will stop at what is asked by the question itself. Take for example the question about Io, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto. If you know what planet they orbit, then it is also very probable that you know something about the history of their discovery and exploration, and the peculiar characteristics of some or all of them.

[Atheist-Lite]

I'm with CES here. Some of the questions relate to topics where it is highly unlikely that one's knowledge will stop at what is asked by the question itself. Take for example the question about Io, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto. If you know what planet they orbit, then it is also very probable that you know something about the history of their discovery and exploration, and the peculiar characteristics of some or all of them.

I know they are orbiting Jupiter but that doesn't make me Patrick Moore.

[klr]

I'm with CES here. Some of the questions relate to topics where it is highly unlikely that one's knowledge will stop at what is asked by the question itself. Take for example the question about Io, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto. If you know what planet they orbit, then it is also very probable that you know something about the history of their discovery and exploration, and the peculiar characteristics of some or all of them.

I know they are orbiting Jupiter but that doesn't make me Patrick Moore.

A strawman, since that was not the object of the test.

[Atheist-Lite]

I'm with CES here. Some of the questions relate to topics where it is highly unlikely that one's knowledge will stop at what is asked by the question itself. Take for example the question about Io, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto. If you know what planet they orbit, then it is also very probable that you know something about the history of their discovery and exploration, and the peculiar characteristics of some or all of them.

I know they are orbiting Jupiter but that doesn't make me Patrick Moore.

A strawman, since that was not the object of the test.

The purpose was to test for a general range of 'surface' scientific knowledge which is both widely known and requires very little heuristic understanding. This isn't scientific literacy being sought but the ability to keep books. It's a test for accountancy.