Are you scientifically literate?

[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.

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.

As usual, any angle at all just to be different.

[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.

As usual, any angle at all just to be different.

I think Christian Monitor might be a clue.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

No, but if someone doesn't know that Europa, Ganymede OR Callisto (it would only take knowing one of those moons orbits Jupiter to get the question right), then it reveals that one has missed a lot of things that demonstrated the fact that these Moons orbit Jupiter. If one has any literacy in astronomy, one would know the major moons of the solar system. Europa, of course, being speculated for decades as possibly having oceans under its ice crust and maybe even life. If a person read Arthur C. Clarke's 2001 A Space Odyssey once, one would know that Europa orbited Jupiter. If one watched any shows about the planets on television, these moons usually come up. If one followed anything related to Voyager's missions, or news concerning Jupiter at all like the comet that hit it, one would have run across these names. I mean - this is very basic stuff - like pre-high school science stuff.

Does it mean a person is stupid if one gets that question wrong, or if one doesn't have much knowledge of the bodies in the solar system? No, of course not. But, if one missed a lot of questions like this one, then it starts to indicate that one just doesn't know a lot about the topic.

[klr]

...

I think Christian Monitor might be a clue.

No, because (as already pointed out), it's not a "religious" publication. You're just stirring the pot, as usual.

Consider yourself ignored for rest of this thread.

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.

No, but if someone doesn't know that Europa, Ganymede OR Callisto (it would only take knowing one of those moons orbits Jupiter to get the question right), then it reveals that one has missed a lot of things that demonstrated the fact that these Moons orbit Jupiter. If one has any literacy in astronomy, one would know the major moons of the solar system. Europa, of course, being speculated for decades as possibly having oceans under its ice crust and maybe even life. If a person read Arthur C. Clarke's 2001 A Space Odyssey once, one would know that Europa orbited Jupiter. If one watched any shows about the planets on television, these moons usually come up. If one followed anything related to Voyager's missions, or news concerning Jupiter at all like the comet that hit it, one would have run across these names. I mean - this is very basic stuff - like pre-high school science stuff.

Does it mean a person is stupid if one gets that question wrong, or if one doesn't have much knowledge of the bodies in the solar system? No, of course not. But, if one missed a lot of questions like this one, then it starts to indicate that one just doesn't know a lot about the topic.

Thanks. That's exactly what I was getting at.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

Not at all. Someone who only got say, 12 of the questions right would be doing no better than guessing. Someone who gets 90% of the questions right has demonstrated general awareness of some basic information. The test wasn't one designed to reveal any "expertise" - just that someone was conscious of some basic information. I.e. general literacy.

Someone who did bad on this test - like only got 50 or 60% correct, really might think about hitting the science section at the Barnes & Nobel and brushing up on some stuff.

[Ronja]

I think Coito is pretty much right here http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 5#p1087305

I would still like to stress, having in my day helped check over 1,000 mid term and final exams (and 125+ first attempts at scientific articles) on Internet and mobile phone network technology and compute/network/information security that I have a very clear preference which type of "weak" student I would rather trust the development of, say, a small company's internal communication network to:

NOT this one: (s)he who gets 100 % on short definitions and multiple choice questions but fumbles and makes little sense in essay questions, the worse the closer to real life networking problems the questions were.

YES this one: (s)he who makes silly, even hard to understand mistakes with short definitions and multiple choice questions (gets authentication and authorization mixed up, for example), but can present a sensible plan for a solution to a practical networking problem or need, and whose essays generally make sense.

IME, people who score perfectly on the lowest/lower lewels of Bloom's taxonomy often are little use in Real Life.

In other words: "I'm all for students being supported and being given the benefit of the doubt, as long as my doctor/dentist/airline pilot/plumber didn't learn that way!"
-- http://www.doceo.co.uk/heterodoxy/supporting.htm

[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.

Not at all. Someone who only got say, 12 of the questions right would be doing no better than guessing. Someone who gets 90% of the questions right has demonstrated general awareness of some basic information. The test wasn't one designed to reveal any "expertise" - just that someone was conscious of some basic information. I.e. general literacy.

Someone who did bad on this test - like only got 50 or 60% correct, really might think about hitting the science section at the Barnes & Nobel and brushing up on some stuff.

Some people in science are of the narrow interest variety. They are to be considered scientificaly illegimate despite being experts in their particular field?

[maiforpeace]

Someone who did bad on this test - like only got 50 or 60% correct, really might think about hitting the science section at the Barnes & Nobel and brushing up on some stuff.

Why, so I can pass another test?

I'm just not that interested in reading stuff about science. And, literacy shouldn't be the only goal...I also think application of scientific principles in real life count for a lot, and I do pretty good in that department. I'm not sure if that would be understanding science better, or simply being able to apply good logic, but I'm satisfied with that.

Not that I don't want to learn anything new about science, but most of the stuff I'm interested in is scientific advances, that sort of thing. And, I exercise the luxury (or laziness, whatever you want to call it) to read up on things I'm really interested in.

[Coito ergo sum]

I think Coito is pretty much right here http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 5#p1087305

I would still like to stress, having in my day helped check over 1,000 mid term and final exams (and 125+ first attempts at scientific articles) on Internet and mobile phone network technology and compute/network/information security that I have a very clear preference which type of "weak" student I would rather trust the development of, say, a small company's internal communication network to:

NOT this one: (s)he who gets 100 % on short definitions and multiple choice questions but fumbles and makes little sense in essay questions, the worse the closer to real life networking problems the questions were.

YES this one: (s)he who makes silly, even hard to understand mistakes with short definitions and multiple choice questions (gets authentication and authorization mixed up, for example), but can present a sensible plan for a solution to a practical networking problem or need, and whose essays generally make sense.

I don't disagree with your point, but I would add that I doubt the typical person who is quite good at the second thing is going to fall on their face on the first thing, normally. I say "normally" meaning - generally speaking - overall. Clearly some conditions and mental issues can wreak havoc on test taking and other such things. But, if someone really gets "authentication" and "authorization" mixed up, and includes that error in a "sensible plan" then would that not also cast some doubt upon the sensibility of the plan?

But, anyway - on the other hand, I need to stress that I'm viewing this globally, and not in terms of missing one question or a few. The thing is, if one habitually gets the words wrong, doesn't properly identify things, and misses basic stuff, then that is an indication that one doesn't know the subject matter.

IME, people who score perfectly on the lowest/lower lewels of Bloom's taxonomy often are little use in Real Life.

Well, it doesn't take a lot of science knowledge to be of great use in real life. One still may not be particularly literate in that area, but be quite useful. That's like the traditional complaint about engineers - lots of book smarts and no social skills and no literacy in literature and the arts. The best engineers know a lot about engineering though.

In other words: "I'm all for students being supported and being given the benefit of the doubt, as long as my doctor/dentist/airline pilot/plumber didn't learn that way!"
-- http://www.doceo.co.uk/heterodoxy/supporting.htm

I wouldn't want my doctor to be a D student, though, or have a 2.0 grade point average.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

Not at all. Someone who only got say, 12 of the questions right would be doing no better than guessing. Someone who gets 90% of the questions right has demonstrated general awareness of some basic information. The test wasn't one designed to reveal any "expertise" - just that someone was conscious of some basic information. I.e. general literacy.

Someone who did bad on this test - like only got 50 or 60% correct, really might think about hitting the science section at the Barnes & Nobel and brushing up on some stuff.

Some people in science are of the narrow interest variety. They are to be considered scientificaly illegimate despite being experts in their particular field?

In the case of this test, the questions were of very basic things, having little to do with "expertise." Just stuff that anyone with a modicum of awareness of general science would likely have.

[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.

Not at all. Someone who only got say, 12 of the questions right would be doing no better than guessing. Someone who gets 90% of the questions right has demonstrated general awareness of some basic information. The test wasn't one designed to reveal any "expertise" - just that someone was conscious of some basic information. I.e. general literacy.

Someone who did bad on this test - like only got 50 or 60% correct, really might think about hitting the science section at the Barnes & Nobel and brushing up on some stuff.

Some people in science are of the narrow interest variety. They are to be considered scientificaly illegimate despite being experts in their particular field?

In the case of this test, the questions were of very basic things, having little to do with "expertise." Just stuff that anyone with a modicum of awareness of general science would likely have.

The test was virtually meaningless in regards of scientific literacy. Proving only that people can recall very basic things and showing no grasp of science as categaorised disciplines of expert knowledge. Proving nothing and saying nothing.

[Coito ergo sum]

Someone who did bad on this test - like only got 50 or 60% correct, really might think about hitting the science section at the Barnes & Nobel and brushing up on some stuff.

Why, so I can pass another test?

No, so that person can have a basic understanding of some basic subject matters. Like, the same reason one might want to have some literacy in English and American literature, some concept of history and geography, some understanding of major philosophies, and some understanding of basic mathematics.

I'm just not that interested in reading stuff about science.

Fair enough. Nobody says you have to be. That doesn't make you scientifically literate. You're just not interested in being that. I'm not interested much in the culinary arts, so I'd probably be considered semi-culinary-literate, with little knowledge of the basics of good cooking. I have to live with that, unless I was willing to sit down and give it some attention.

My opinion, and it is just my opinion, is that an educated person ought to know a thing or two about the subjects that I listed, under the same theory that, in the day, a classical liberal arts education gave one the basics of being an educated person.

And, literacy shouldn't be the only goal...I also think application of scientific principles in real life count for a lot, and I do pretty good in that department.

How can you apply scientific principles in real life without being literate in them? Without knowing them? I'm of the mind that one can't "apply" a scientific principle without actually knowing the scientific principle applied. I see that as axiomatic.

I'm not sure if that would be understanding science better, or simply being able to apply good logic, but I'm satisfied with that.

Not that I don't want to learn anything new about science, but most of the stuff I'm interested in is scientific advances, that sort of thing. And, I exercise the luxury (or laziness, whatever you want to call it) to read up on things I'm really interested in.

That's fine, as do I. But, by the same token, if I took a quiz in Roman history and the quiz focused on emperors, major conquests, and major historical events, and I got 50 or 60% right, I wouldn't find myself to be particularly literate in Roman history. I also can't know "why" or "how" the struggle between Rome and Dacia occurred without knowing the factual context, which necessarily requires some knowledge of who, what, where, and when. That's the analogy I would use to illustrate my point. Not everyone is interested in Roman history, and not everyone is interested in science. However, one can't claim literacy in a subject one doesn't know much about. That's just reality - the value judgment we place on that (whether the subject is worthwhile studying, whether it is "necessary" for a good education or well-rounded intellect, or whether it is "bad" to be deficient in a particular topic, etc.), well that sort of thing is up to each individual to decide for himself or herself.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

Not at all. Someone who only got say, 12 of the questions right would be doing no better than guessing. Someone who gets 90% of the questions right has demonstrated general awareness of some basic information. The test wasn't one designed to reveal any "expertise" - just that someone was conscious of some basic information. I.e. general literacy.

Someone who did bad on this test - like only got 50 or 60% correct, really might think about hitting the science section at the Barnes & Nobel and brushing up on some stuff.

Some people in science are of the narrow interest variety. They are to be considered scientificaly illegimate despite being experts in their particular field?

In the case of this test, the questions were of very basic things, having little to do with "expertise." Just stuff that anyone with a modicum of awareness of general science would likely have.

The test was virtually meaningless in regards of scientific literacy. Proving only that people can recall very basic things and showing no grasp of science as categaorised disciplines of expert knowledge. Proving nothing and saying nothing.

The lament of the D student.

[Eddie]

You guys couldn't just do the test and chill, could you?

[rachelbean]

You guys couldn't just do the test and chill, could you?

I don't think you know where you are