4 ms·

“He then assessed each person’s scientific literacy with questions such as “True or False: Electrons are smaller than atoms.” This is not a scientific literacy

“He then assessed each person’s scientific literacy with questions such as “True or False: Electrons are smaller than atoms.” This is not a scientific literacy. It does not require to understand what science is and how it differs from a belief. Not much difference from asking "What is heavier: air or water?" Edit: What people really lack is the understanding what science is. Why this method of exploring the world works better than the others. Only after that they can understand why it is worth to pay attention to it.

Retra 9y ago
How are you going to know what science is if you don't even understand the most basic of scientific facts? The only way someone goes around not knowing the answer to that question is if they've never even seriously discussed science in an educational manner. >What people really lack is the understanding what science is. Why this method of exploring the world works better than the others. Only after that they can understand why it is worth to pay attention to it. Absolutely not. You don't have to know how money works to know it is worth having. You don't have to know how language works to know that you have to speak. And you can certainly understand the value of science without having any knowledge of how to personally do it. You just need some respect for those that do. And I would bet that most people who care enough about the scientific method already understood that it is valuable before they ever bothered to study it. You can't ask for this to be done the other way around. Nobody is going to develop scientific literacy so that you can later show them that it is valuable.
- jackvalentine 9y ago
  > How are you going to know what science is if you don't even understand the most basic of scientific facts? The only way someone goes around not knowing the answer to that question is if they've never even seriously discussed science in an educational manner. I don't know the answer to that question but I understand the scientific method. Memorizing facts about natural phenomena has nothing to do with understanding the concept of science.
- jgamman 9y ago
  it's certainly less mass-ive by a factor of a 1000 or so but then it's smeared across a volume, because quantum physics. in some sense, the concept of an atom and the electron 'space' are interchangeable if you think of those cute STM images of atoms spelling out words. this is one of those funny questions that go through a local maximum somewhere between ignorance and grad school. it's obvious right up until someone points out it's all really @#$@#$@ confusing.
oceanghost 9y ago
This is a difference in cognition types. Concrete thinkers think facts are knowledge, abstract thinkers model systems in their mind so they can predict facts. Almost all of our teaching and testing is for concrete thinkers, but the gulf between the two is enormous. As an abstract thinker, I can't remember facts. I have to know why something works the way it does. Interviews are very difficult for me. I either hit an abstract t thinker and look like a genius, or a concrete and look like an idiot.

Retra 9y ago

How are you going to know what science is if you don't even understand the most basic of scientific facts? The only way someone goes around not knowing the answer to that question is if they've never even seriously discussed science in an educational manner. >What people really lack is the understanding what science is. Why this method of exploring the world works better than the others. Only after that they can understand why it is worth to pay attention to it. Absolutely not. You don't have to know how money works to know it is worth having. You don't have to know how language works to know that you have to speak. And you can certainly understand the value of science without having any knowledge of how to personally do it. You just need some respect for those that do. And I would bet that most people who care enough about the scientific method already understood that it is valuable before they ever bothered to study it. You can't ask for this to be done the other way around. Nobody is going to develop scientific literacy so that you can later show them that it is valuable.

jackvalentine 9y ago
> How are you going to know what science is if you don't even understand the most basic of scientific facts? The only way someone goes around not knowing the answer to that question is if they've never even seriously discussed science in an educational manner. I don't know the answer to that question but I understand the scientific method. Memorizing facts about natural phenomena has nothing to do with understanding the concept of science.
jgamman 9y ago
it's certainly less mass-ive by a factor of a 1000 or so but then it's smeared across a volume, because quantum physics. in some sense, the concept of an atom and the electron 'space' are interchangeable if you think of those cute STM images of atoms spelling out words. this is one of those funny questions that go through a local maximum somewhere between ignorance and grad school. it's obvious right up until someone points out it's all really @#$@#$@ confusing.

oceanghost 9y ago

This is a difference in cognition types. Concrete thinkers think facts are knowledge, abstract thinkers model systems in their mind so they can predict facts. Almost all of our teaching and testing is for concrete thinkers, but the gulf between the two is enormous. As an abstract thinker, I can't remember facts. I have to know why something works the way it does. Interviews are very difficult for me. I either hit an abstract t thinker and look like a genius, or a concrete and look like an idiot.