10 ms·

Why Is Scientific Illiteracy So Acceptable?

53 points by 11thEarlOfMar 6y ago

maze-le 6y ago
> It remains a badge of honor for many who like to describe themselves as highly cultured or artistic to describe themselves as mathematically challenged, or to say that their brains aren’t wired for mathematics. Because many of those they hold in high esteem have made similar claims, there is no real social penalty to them for doing so. For many scientific illiteracy is in the same category as mathematical illiteracy -- but the problem starts there already. Everybody should at least know what a Fourier transformation does -- it's not necessary to exercise it rigorously, but at least an idea... I think this video is enough to give even laymans an idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6sGWTCMz2k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6sGWTCMz2k
rbanffy 6y ago
It's really not. We are going to pay very high price for this.
perfunctory 6y ago
Indeed. It puzzles me why in our society numeracy doesn't seem to be as important as literacy. If kids struggle with learning to read we won't give up until they get it. If they struggle with fractions we often shrug and say their brains aren’t wired for mathematics. Sad.
- tallies 6y ago
  As someone who isn't 'wired for math' (but still knows my fractions, so to speak) I can't imagine putting math up against literacy. Reading is so fundamental to both communication and learning. Why do you equate the two?
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
    Math is pretty fundamental, it is the basis for a lot of what people do in modern society and provides a better basis for solving many problems than the alternatives. Universal literacy is a relatively new concept that civilization went a very long time without. One can make the argument that it is not really necessary for communication or learning. I don't really believe there is such a thing as not being 'wired for math' any more than there is such a thing as not being 'wired for reading'. Absent mental impairment it is something that can be learned, it's just that we generally do a terrible job of teaching it.
- drewcoo 6y ago
  Stop. Danger. Caution. Poison. Love. Hate. Trump. These things and more are communicated perfectly well without multiplying by a power of ten or knowing what that power of ten is called. As a species we seem to be terrible at things like estimation, probability, and at risk assessment. That's often wrapped up in this innumeracy business, too.
- EForEndeavour 6y ago
  Is that a reflection of the fact that it's far worse to be illiterate than innumerate? Sure, an innumerate person will struggle in all kinds of everyday contexts and probably won't end up working as an engineer or mathematician. But if they can read and write fluently, and are skilled/talented in ways that don't require much math, they can still excel in a number of career types. By contrast, if a person can't read or write, they're shut out of a huge fraction of careers, even if they're exceptionally good with numbers.
mam2 6y ago
Because its not so important to survival. You will derive more pleasure in your life knowing how to pickup chicks (or guys), or caring to your family, than having any pain thinking the earth is flat. No pain at all. Ignorance is bliss. Science is interesting but interesting does not make it fundamental for you as an animal.
madaxe_again 6y ago
Specific illiteracy is positively omnipresent. Try talking to an accountant about Renaissance art. Try talking to a butcher about linguistic theory. To a neurosurgeon about Egyptian architecture. Specialisation is what our society mandates, and you don’t improve your lot by having knowledge which is extraneous to your specialisation - unless you have a lot of extraneous knowledge, in which case, congratulations, you’re an undesirable generalist. We live in a world built with the scientific method, however, which means that scientific illiteracy has greater scope for making poorly informed impactful decisions. Likely nobody will die if you don’t know a finial from a pilaster. So - rather than viewing this as a problem of scientific illiteracy, I view this as a problem of overspecialisation. We are taught, from early on, to focus on that which interests us, and to hone in on a tiny slice of information to pursue a specialised career. Crack that, make being a generalist desirable, and you have your scientific literacy - but doing so is incompatible with our current economies.
- DobryMorozov 6y ago
  But having niche knowledge of art, architecture and linguistics is much different than than understanding the scientific method, basic statistics, how to interpret studies and critical thinking. Those fundamental skills are essential to making informed decisions
  - Tainnor 6y ago
    you're just proving his point. knowing much about linguistics teaches you much about culture and/or the human cognition. knowing much about arts (including things like literature, music, etc.) teaches you things about the human condition, about history, about philosophy, ... I see those as equally fundamental as scientific knowledge.
- rjsw 6y ago
  > To a neurosurgeon about Egyptian architecture. See Ben Carson.
dry_soup 6y ago
Quilette is an interesting choice of publication, given that they don't mind promoting one particular kind of "scientific" literacy: https://quillette.com/2018/05/12/biosocial-criminology-lombrosian-paradox/ https://quillette.com/2018/05/12/biosocial-criminology-lombr... https://quillette.com/2019/06/05/superior-the-return-of-race-science-a-review/ https://quillette.com/2019/06/05/superior-the-return-of-race...
- nerdponx 6y ago
  What's scientifically illiterate about this?
- dry_soup 6y ago
  My apologies. I didn't know that Skull Calipers Monthly was such a popular periodical on HN!
  - nerdponx 6y ago
    From the 2nd article: Before proceeding, we should be clear about what we are not saying. First, we are not denying that research into the genetics of human differences has been misused for appalling purposes at various points over the last two centuries. Second, we are not denying that some of the scientists who have undertaken such research were motivated by racial animus or by a desire to subjugate other people. Hence we understand the temptation to assume the worst about anyone who might be willing to entertain what we have called ‘hereditarian claims.’ Nonetheless, equating hereditarian claims with racism is a fallacy, and one that we believe is likely to end up doing more harm than good. The thesis is basically "yes, humans do in fact differ physiologically, in groups corresponding to geography, and no it is not inherently racist to assert this."
- cultus 6y ago
  There's definitely a segment of HN trying to push these kind of dog whistles. Quilette is an outlet of the alt-right. No reputable publication does race science.
- jfengel 6y ago
everdrive 6y ago
Math is much more binary. I can describe a problem quite well, and describe it well enough that I could be said to understand it. But I really can't put many problems into math. I've seen others do it, and it seems like a wonder to me. I'm not a dumb guy either, but my english and math scores on my SAT were off by more than 130 points. Some people in this thread are claiming that it's foolish to think that some people don't have math brains. I'm not sure what to tell you -- you're simply wrong. Could I understand math better than I do? Almost certainly, but it's unlikely I could ever be an engineer.
- op03 6y ago
  You are correct and those people are too ignorant to understand how ignorant they are. Don't worry about the noise they generate. They have nothing else to contribute. Here is Hermann von Helmotz on Michael Faraday (who knew no math) - "Now that the mathematical interpretation of Faraday's conceptions regarding the nature of electric and magnetic forces has been given by Clerk Maxwell, we see how great a degree of exactness and precision was really hidden behind the words which to Faraday's contemporaries appeared either vague or obscure; and it is in the highest degree astonishing to see what a large number of general theorems, the methodical deduction of which requires the highest powers of mathematical analysis, he found by a kind of intuition, with the security of instinct, without the help of a single mathematical formula."
- gibspaulding 6y ago
  There's a difference between "it's unlikely I could ever be an engineer" and "I can't pass Algebra 1". High level math and things like number theory do require a certain creative intuition that is harder for some people to learn than others, but if you can follow a recipe, figure out who has the right of way at a stop sign, or follow the rules while playing a card or board game, then you can get through Calc I. I used to work as a math tutor when I was in College, and tons of the students who would come into the tutoring center seemed to have a sort of math-phobia. They'd been saying that they just "aren't good at math" for so long that they couldn't bring themselves to try. If you could convince them that they could do what you were asking them to do, it was pretty straight forward to walk them through the math itself. My wife is a special education teacher now, and experiences the same phenomenon. She has students who really do struggle, but for a lot of them, it's just a matter of convincing them to actually look at the problem and the tools/patterns they have been taught. Is is incredibly destructive when people (including teachers) present math as some sort of black magic that they won't touch with ten foot pole. There are a lot of students out there for whom math isn't necessarily immediately intuitive, or who simply had a rough school year at the wrong time and fell behind. When those students hear others dismiss mathematics it validates them doing the same, and the next generation looses one more potential scientist. As you may have noticed, this is an issue close to my heart. /end rant
bjt2n3904 6y ago
Some of the most scientifically illiterate people I've encountered are the people who say things like, "We listen to the science when it comes to COVID-19". Let us be perfectly real. When it comes to political decisions based on forecasts, you are not "listening to science". Science can answer many questions. I can ask it, "How long do I need to fire the engines to achieve this particular orbit", or perhaps "How much material do I need in this region of the bridge to sustain the load of traffic going across it?" But science is not the computer from Star Trek. I can't come to science and ask it, "How long should we quarantine to minimize health impact, and maximize economic recovery?" Ultimately, that question does not have a scientific answer. It can be informed by statistics -- to the best that we understand the numbers, and scientists can present models of what they think the future will look like... but results not guaranteed. Some problems have clear cut answers, that science can contribute concrete solutions to. Other problems do not have clear cut answers -- but have a large population of supporters claiming that all "the science" agrees with them, and to disagree with them is to shun reason. This is also scientific illiteracy.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  Edit: see replies below this post which clarify what was intended. My response was based on a misunderstanding; that cleared up, I now agree with the poster. --- > When it comes to political decisions based on forecasts, you are not "listening to science". if those forecasts are based on science/maths, yes you are listening to science. > Ultimately, that question does not have a scientific answer yes it does, just the best science can do (as in, estimate) based on limited data. If you want better than that, drop to your knees and ask god because that's all that's left. Your post badly misunderstands what science is.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    I think you are misrepresenting the parent which explicitly mentions tradeoffs. Science can help inform those tradeoffs but cannot make them for you. At the risk of reopening a rather heated discussion from yesterday, "science" cannot answer the question of whether it is reasonable to have a policy allowing outdoor dining in, say, NYC. ADDED: Science can (probably and imperfectly) help you estimate how risky a given behavior is likely to be. However, it cannot tell you whether, say, a presumably low risk activity (both personally and in terms of disease spread) should be allowed given economic impact, people's social needs/wants, etc.
bjt2n3904 6y ago
As an addendum. Many people (quite frankly) worship "Science" like it is a benevolent deity. You just have to "listen" to it, and good results will come out, bettering society. But terrible things happen when you try to apply science to a field that it should not apply to. Science can tell you how to do something effectively. It will not tell you whether or not it is good or beneficial to do a certain thing. There was a news article recently published, that claimed that Iceland had eradicated Down's Syndrome. The mother runs through a battery of tests to determine if her baby has a genetic abnormality -- and if so, can choose an abortion. Unequivocally, this is genocide! Genocide! Contrary to the "IFL Science" types who wake up singing "There's a great, big, beautiful tomorrow", Huxley has an appreciation for what science is truly capable of. > We are living now, not in the delicious intoxication induced by the early successes of science, but in a rather grisly morning-after, when it has become apparent that what triumphant science has done hitherto is to improve the means for achieving unimproved or actually deteriorated ends.
- EForEndeavour 6y ago
  > The mother runs through a battery of tests to determine if her baby has a genetic abnormality -- and if so, can choose an abortion. Providing expectant parents with better information and more choice? Sign me up. > Unequivocally, this is genocide! Genocide! If it's unequivocal, why do opposing opinions exist?
  - emilecantin 6y ago
    From "gene" (as in DNA, genetic screening) and "-cide" (killing), litterally "killing a gene", in the most literal sense of the word.
- 0xfeba 6y ago
  > There was a news article recently published, that claimed that Iceland had eradicated Down's Syndrome. The mother runs through a battery of tests to determine if her baby has a genetic abnormality -- and if so, can choose an abortion. Unequivocally, this is genocide! Genocide! I'm really interested in how you can categorize abortion of unwanted babies as genocide. I mean, I get it, they prevented DS babies from being born, ergo "eliminated a group of people", for generous definitions of people. Would you say the same about preventing all babies from being born with fetal alcohol syndrome by having the mothers abort? What about having the mothers not drink when pregnant?
ChefboyOG 6y ago
I suspect, somewhat anecdotally, that this begins with the educational system (at least in the US). Reflecting on my education, at least, it's remarkable how much of it boiled down to exercises in reading comprehension. Even many of my science classes were really just training my ability to read a passage and respond to a short answer question. There were many "alternative" math tracks offered--home economics you could take home economics after algebra 1, if you weren't a "math person"--and just generally, it was constantly reinforced that math was a specialization, not a fundamental skill.
- ChefboyOG 6y ago
  This also isn't to suggest that the education system is the only thing at play here.
lordnacho 6y ago
Actually the problem is not just that people don't know about science, they know so little that they don't know who to ask, either. Look at your local antivaxx FB group, they think Wakefield is authoritative. I blame the education system. There's way too much specific knowledge that you will be tested on, and barely any theory of knowledge or scientific method fundamentals. And in the end, you will forget the silly quiz questions, leaving you with just the principles, if you were so lucky. It would have been nice to have a general survey as well. "Not gonna quiz you on it, but FYI apart from the classic subjects that you are learning, there are also things like geology, materials science, a huge array of mathematical things, and so on. Just so you don't think that we had enough time at school to teach you everything."
- zamfi 6y ago
  > I blame the education system This is a popular venue for blame, but perhaps you haven’t yet met the highly respected scientists claiming that masks don’t work against covid, that AIDS wasn’t real, or that vitamin C cures everything —- these are all highly educated people who, in their fields, have a deep understanding of “theory of knowledge” and “scientific method fundamentals”. But, they are also human, and suffer from the human biases: confirmation bias, various selection biases like survivorship bias, etc. These, I think, are more likely the culprits — and if you can figure out how to solve those within the education system, please share!
  - lordnacho 6y ago
    I have actually met medical doctors who believed in homeopathy. My point isn't that they wouldn't exist if things were taught properly. For a start, schools could teach people about how we actually unravel truths from statistics. It's a bit unfortunate that one of the most famous books in the area is called "How to Lie with Statistics". But all those things you mention, did you learn them in school? No, you tend to learn the conclusions but not the reasoning behind.
    - zamfi 6y ago
      > I have actually met medical doctors who believed in homeopathy. My point isn't that they wouldn't exist if things were taught properly. What...is your point then?
TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
What does science fiction have to do with this? The real culprit is an established and generously funded PR - "public manipulation" - industry which is dedicated to misleading and misinforming the public in general, and lobbying selected politicians in particular. Lead in petrol, smoking, toxic weedkillers, unsafe vehicles, and many other money-making aberrations have all been defended by these operations. Anti-masking and climate change denialism are just the latest toxic outputs from this industry. It's very disappointing to see a scientist complain about scientific illiteracy and then attack the wrong people for it.
juskrey 6y ago
Nowadays I see much more overeducated people who are blind to obvious real life things, helpless, sick and overdependent on government.
treeman79 6y ago
https://drhoffman.com/article/15-reasons-why-most-health-studies-are-wrong/ https://drhoffman.com/article/15-reasons-why-most-health-stu... Most studies are wrong.
scythe 6y ago
Readers familiar with Quillette may wonder why such a level-headed essay by a somewhat well-known author appears here and not on the website of a more respectable publication. This is why: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/10/lawrence-krauss-sexual-misconduct-me-too-arizona-state/573844/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/10/lawrence... It turns out that when people are kicked out, they don't just disappear. Dr. Krauss makes his point well; it's a shame the essay won't have the impact it should. But should he have that impact? I really don't know.
sleepysysadmin 6y ago
"Topic" illiteracy is acceptable because people can only know so much. Nobody ever talks about the illiteracy in terms of 'trees are air.' or 'lasers are focused light' both of which are not common knowledge. Most people think Trees come from the ground and lasers are focused sound. "Scientific Illiteracy" is almost always not about knowledge but rather political policy. Or in his words "scientific facts people may remember." That's why Amy Coney Barrett's vague non-answer is being construed as science illiteracy. While Kamala Harris is being portrayed as the winner. ACB is not giving any answer, she outright says she's keeping her nose out of the political issue. There's no answer whether or not she believes in climate change. >Inappropriate claims like this by politicians who want to be on the right side of science but who can’t be bothered to think about what it implies don’t help. I think this illustrates the problem. This isn't about scientific literacy, it's about politics. This has nothing to do with science.
dan-robertson 6y ago
Why is literature illiteracy so acceptable? There’s two levels of scientific illiteracy. One is in the general population, but the general population also has, for example, literature illiteracy too. The other is the topic of C.P. Snow’s famous Two Cultures essay, where the generally well educated members of society are separated into those who know about science but not the humanities and the opposite. It certainly used to be the case that those educated members of society could discuss both topics. I’ve heard a claim that one thing is the replacement of any kind of ontology for science with mathematics (ie you don’t have a theory for why the world is but merely that some equations hold), and this mathematics isn’t easy—you need a lot more than school mathematics to understand Maxwell’s equations for example.
erdos4d 6y ago
I think this whole topic misses the elephant in the room: STEM is a genetic lottery that our current economic and social system rewards with a better life and more resources. About 90% of the population are the losers in that game and they damn well know it. When humans get excluded like that, they often resent those who got the better deal and will work to nullify their advantage. With science, you can't really say "oh, that doesn't matter", so about the only realistic option is to not care about it, or proudly proclaim you don't know much about it, hence the behavior the author has witnessed. If society would even out the system, I would bet much of the impetus for this anti-science backlash would disappear.
- im3w1l 6y ago
  The incapable correctly fear that the capable will use the power of their positions for their own ends. When you decide who to trust, you have to make a tradeoff between how competent they are and how likely you think they have your best interests at heart.
- ghaff 6y ago
  >STEM is a genetic lottery that our current economic and social system rewards with a better life and more resources. I wonder to what degree that statement is flavored by tech tub developer salaries. A lot of scientists aren't especially well compensated compared to say stock traders. STEM does tend to lead to at least somewhat highish prestige occupations but it's not really a money/resources thing.

53 points by 11thEarlOfMar 6y ago

> It remains a badge of honor for many who like to describe themselves as highly cultured or artistic to describe themselves as mathematically challenged, or to say that their brains aren’t wired for mathematics. Because many of those they hold in high esteem have made similar claims, there is no real social penalty to them for doing so. For many scientific illiteracy is in the same category as mathematical illiteracy -- but the problem starts there already. Everybody should at least know what a Fourier transformation does -- it's not necessary to exercise it rigorously, but at least an idea... I think this video is enough to give even laymans an idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6sGWTCMz2k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6sGWTCMz2k

rbanffy 6y ago

It's really not. We are going to pay very high price for this.

perfunctory 6y ago

Indeed. It puzzles me why in our society numeracy doesn't seem to be as important as literacy. If kids struggle with learning to read we won't give up until they get it. If they struggle with fractions we often shrug and say their brains aren’t wired for mathematics. Sad.

tallies 6y ago
As someone who isn't 'wired for math' (but still knows my fractions, so to speak) I can't imagine putting math up against literacy. Reading is so fundamental to both communication and learning. Why do you equate the two?
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
  Math is pretty fundamental, it is the basis for a lot of what people do in modern society and provides a better basis for solving many problems than the alternatives. Universal literacy is a relatively new concept that civilization went a very long time without. One can make the argument that it is not really necessary for communication or learning. I don't really believe there is such a thing as not being 'wired for math' any more than there is such a thing as not being 'wired for reading'. Absent mental impairment it is something that can be learned, it's just that we generally do a terrible job of teaching it.
drewcoo 6y ago
Stop. Danger. Caution. Poison. Love. Hate. Trump. These things and more are communicated perfectly well without multiplying by a power of ten or knowing what that power of ten is called. As a species we seem to be terrible at things like estimation, probability, and at risk assessment. That's often wrapped up in this innumeracy business, too.
EForEndeavour 6y ago
Is that a reflection of the fact that it's far worse to be illiterate than innumerate? Sure, an innumerate person will struggle in all kinds of everyday contexts and probably won't end up working as an engineer or mathematician. But if they can read and write fluently, and are skilled/talented in ways that don't require much math, they can still excel in a number of career types. By contrast, if a person can't read or write, they're shut out of a huge fraction of careers, even if they're exceptionally good with numbers.

mam2 6y ago

Because its not so important to survival. You will derive more pleasure in your life knowing how to pickup chicks (or guys), or caring to your family, than having any pain thinking the earth is flat. No pain at all. Ignorance is bliss. Science is interesting but interesting does not make it fundamental for you as an animal.

madaxe_again 6y ago

Specific illiteracy is positively omnipresent. Try talking to an accountant about Renaissance art. Try talking to a butcher about linguistic theory. To a neurosurgeon about Egyptian architecture. Specialisation is what our society mandates, and you don’t improve your lot by having knowledge which is extraneous to your specialisation - unless you have a lot of extraneous knowledge, in which case, congratulations, you’re an undesirable generalist. We live in a world built with the scientific method, however, which means that scientific illiteracy has greater scope for making poorly informed impactful decisions. Likely nobody will die if you don’t know a finial from a pilaster. So - rather than viewing this as a problem of scientific illiteracy, I view this as a problem of overspecialisation. We are taught, from early on, to focus on that which interests us, and to hone in on a tiny slice of information to pursue a specialised career. Crack that, make being a generalist desirable, and you have your scientific literacy - but doing so is incompatible with our current economies.

DobryMorozov 6y ago
But having niche knowledge of art, architecture and linguistics is much different than than understanding the scientific method, basic statistics, how to interpret studies and critical thinking. Those fundamental skills are essential to making informed decisions
- Tainnor 6y ago
  you're just proving his point. knowing much about linguistics teaches you much about culture and/or the human cognition. knowing much about arts (including things like literature, music, etc.) teaches you things about the human condition, about history, about philosophy, ... I see those as equally fundamental as scientific knowledge.
rjsw 6y ago
> To a neurosurgeon about Egyptian architecture. See Ben Carson.

dry_soup 6y ago

Quilette is an interesting choice of publication, given that they don't mind promoting one particular kind of "scientific" literacy: https://quillette.com/2018/05/12/biosocial-criminology-lombrosian-paradox/ https://quillette.com/2018/05/12/biosocial-criminology-lombr... https://quillette.com/2019/06/05/superior-the-return-of-race-science-a-review/ https://quillette.com/2019/06/05/superior-the-return-of-race...

nerdponx 6y ago
What's scientifically illiterate about this?
dry_soup 6y ago
My apologies. I didn't know that Skull Calipers Monthly was such a popular periodical on HN!
- nerdponx 6y ago
  From the 2nd article: Before proceeding, we should be clear about what we are not saying. First, we are not denying that research into the genetics of human differences has been misused for appalling purposes at various points over the last two centuries. Second, we are not denying that some of the scientists who have undertaken such research were motivated by racial animus or by a desire to subjugate other people. Hence we understand the temptation to assume the worst about anyone who might be willing to entertain what we have called ‘hereditarian claims.’ Nonetheless, equating hereditarian claims with racism is a fallacy, and one that we believe is likely to end up doing more harm than good. The thesis is basically "yes, humans do in fact differ physiologically, in groups corresponding to geography, and no it is not inherently racist to assert this."
cultus 6y ago
There's definitely a segment of HN trying to push these kind of dog whistles. Quilette is an outlet of the alt-right. No reputable publication does race science.
jfengel 6y ago

everdrive 6y ago

Math is much more binary. I can describe a problem quite well, and describe it well enough that I could be said to understand it. But I really can't put many problems into math. I've seen others do it, and it seems like a wonder to me. I'm not a dumb guy either, but my english and math scores on my SAT were off by more than 130 points. Some people in this thread are claiming that it's foolish to think that some people don't have math brains. I'm not sure what to tell you -- you're simply wrong. Could I understand math better than I do? Almost certainly, but it's unlikely I could ever be an engineer.

op03 6y ago
You are correct and those people are too ignorant to understand how ignorant they are. Don't worry about the noise they generate. They have nothing else to contribute. Here is Hermann von Helmotz on Michael Faraday (who knew no math) - "Now that the mathematical interpretation of Faraday's conceptions regarding the nature of electric and magnetic forces has been given by Clerk Maxwell, we see how great a degree of exactness and precision was really hidden behind the words which to Faraday's contemporaries appeared either vague or obscure; and it is in the highest degree astonishing to see what a large number of general theorems, the methodical deduction of which requires the highest powers of mathematical analysis, he found by a kind of intuition, with the security of instinct, without the help of a single mathematical formula."
gibspaulding 6y ago
There's a difference between "it's unlikely I could ever be an engineer" and "I can't pass Algebra 1". High level math and things like number theory do require a certain creative intuition that is harder for some people to learn than others, but if you can follow a recipe, figure out who has the right of way at a stop sign, or follow the rules while playing a card or board game, then you can get through Calc I. I used to work as a math tutor when I was in College, and tons of the students who would come into the tutoring center seemed to have a sort of math-phobia. They'd been saying that they just "aren't good at math" for so long that they couldn't bring themselves to try. If you could convince them that they could do what you were asking them to do, it was pretty straight forward to walk them through the math itself. My wife is a special education teacher now, and experiences the same phenomenon. She has students who really do struggle, but for a lot of them, it's just a matter of convincing them to actually look at the problem and the tools/patterns they have been taught. Is is incredibly destructive when people (including teachers) present math as some sort of black magic that they won't touch with ten foot pole. There are a lot of students out there for whom math isn't necessarily immediately intuitive, or who simply had a rough school year at the wrong time and fell behind. When those students hear others dismiss mathematics it validates them doing the same, and the next generation looses one more potential scientist. As you may have noticed, this is an issue close to my heart. /end rant

bjt2n3904 6y ago

Some of the most scientifically illiterate people I've encountered are the people who say things like, "We listen to the science when it comes to COVID-19". Let us be perfectly real. When it comes to political decisions based on forecasts, you are not "listening to science". Science can answer many questions. I can ask it, "How long do I need to fire the engines to achieve this particular orbit", or perhaps "How much material do I need in this region of the bridge to sustain the load of traffic going across it?" But science is not the computer from Star Trek. I can't come to science and ask it, "How long should we quarantine to minimize health impact, and maximize economic recovery?" Ultimately, that question does not have a scientific answer. It can be informed by statistics -- to the best that we understand the numbers, and scientists can present models of what they think the future will look like... but results not guaranteed. Some problems have clear cut answers, that science can contribute concrete solutions to. Other problems do not have clear cut answers -- but have a large population of supporters claiming that all "the science" agrees with them, and to disagree with them is to shun reason. This is also scientific illiteracy.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
Edit: see replies below this post which clarify what was intended. My response was based on a misunderstanding; that cleared up, I now agree with the poster. --- > When it comes to political decisions based on forecasts, you are not "listening to science". if those forecasts are based on science/maths, yes you are listening to science. > Ultimately, that question does not have a scientific answer yes it does, just the best science can do (as in, estimate) based on limited data. If you want better than that, drop to your knees and ask god because that's all that's left. Your post badly misunderstands what science is.
- ghaff 6y ago
  I think you are misrepresenting the parent which explicitly mentions tradeoffs. Science can help inform those tradeoffs but cannot make them for you. At the risk of reopening a rather heated discussion from yesterday, "science" cannot answer the question of whether it is reasonable to have a policy allowing outdoor dining in, say, NYC. ADDED: Science can (probably and imperfectly) help you estimate how risky a given behavior is likely to be. However, it cannot tell you whether, say, a presumably low risk activity (both personally and in terms of disease spread) should be allowed given economic impact, people's social needs/wants, etc.

bjt2n3904 6y ago

As an addendum. Many people (quite frankly) worship "Science" like it is a benevolent deity. You just have to "listen" to it, and good results will come out, bettering society. But terrible things happen when you try to apply science to a field that it should not apply to. Science can tell you how to do something effectively. It will not tell you whether or not it is good or beneficial to do a certain thing. There was a news article recently published, that claimed that Iceland had eradicated Down's Syndrome. The mother runs through a battery of tests to determine if her baby has a genetic abnormality -- and if so, can choose an abortion. Unequivocally, this is genocide! Genocide! Contrary to the "IFL Science" types who wake up singing "There's a great, big, beautiful tomorrow", Huxley has an appreciation for what science is truly capable of. > We are living now, not in the delicious intoxication induced by the early successes of science, but in a rather grisly morning-after, when it has become apparent that what triumphant science has done hitherto is to improve the means for achieving unimproved or actually deteriorated ends.

EForEndeavour 6y ago
> The mother runs through a battery of tests to determine if her baby has a genetic abnormality -- and if so, can choose an abortion. Providing expectant parents with better information and more choice? Sign me up. > Unequivocally, this is genocide! Genocide! If it's unequivocal, why do opposing opinions exist?
- emilecantin 6y ago
  From "gene" (as in DNA, genetic screening) and "-cide" (killing), litterally "killing a gene", in the most literal sense of the word.
0xfeba 6y ago
> There was a news article recently published, that claimed that Iceland had eradicated Down's Syndrome. The mother runs through a battery of tests to determine if her baby has a genetic abnormality -- and if so, can choose an abortion. Unequivocally, this is genocide! Genocide! I'm really interested in how you can categorize abortion of unwanted babies as genocide. I mean, I get it, they prevented DS babies from being born, ergo "eliminated a group of people", for generous definitions of people. Would you say the same about preventing all babies from being born with fetal alcohol syndrome by having the mothers abort? What about having the mothers not drink when pregnant?

ChefboyOG 6y ago

I suspect, somewhat anecdotally, that this begins with the educational system (at least in the US). Reflecting on my education, at least, it's remarkable how much of it boiled down to exercises in reading comprehension. Even many of my science classes were really just training my ability to read a passage and respond to a short answer question. There were many "alternative" math tracks offered--home economics you could take home economics after algebra 1, if you weren't a "math person"--and just generally, it was constantly reinforced that math was a specialization, not a fundamental skill.

ChefboyOG 6y ago
This also isn't to suggest that the education system is the only thing at play here.

lordnacho 6y ago

Actually the problem is not just that people don't know about science, they know so little that they don't know who to ask, either. Look at your local antivaxx FB group, they think Wakefield is authoritative. I blame the education system. There's way too much specific knowledge that you will be tested on, and barely any theory of knowledge or scientific method fundamentals. And in the end, you will forget the silly quiz questions, leaving you with just the principles, if you were so lucky. It would have been nice to have a general survey as well. "Not gonna quiz you on it, but FYI apart from the classic subjects that you are learning, there are also things like geology, materials science, a huge array of mathematical things, and so on. Just so you don't think that we had enough time at school to teach you everything."

zamfi 6y ago
> I blame the education system This is a popular venue for blame, but perhaps you haven’t yet met the highly respected scientists claiming that masks don’t work against covid, that AIDS wasn’t real, or that vitamin C cures everything —- these are all highly educated people who, in their fields, have a deep understanding of “theory of knowledge” and “scientific method fundamentals”. But, they are also human, and suffer from the human biases: confirmation bias, various selection biases like survivorship bias, etc. These, I think, are more likely the culprits — and if you can figure out how to solve those within the education system, please share!
- lordnacho 6y ago
  I have actually met medical doctors who believed in homeopathy. My point isn't that they wouldn't exist if things were taught properly. For a start, schools could teach people about how we actually unravel truths from statistics. It's a bit unfortunate that one of the most famous books in the area is called "How to Lie with Statistics". But all those things you mention, did you learn them in school? No, you tend to learn the conclusions but not the reasoning behind.
  - zamfi 6y ago
    > I have actually met medical doctors who believed in homeopathy. My point isn't that they wouldn't exist if things were taught properly. What...is your point then?

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago

What does science fiction have to do with this? The real culprit is an established and generously funded PR - "public manipulation" - industry which is dedicated to misleading and misinforming the public in general, and lobbying selected politicians in particular. Lead in petrol, smoking, toxic weedkillers, unsafe vehicles, and many other money-making aberrations have all been defended by these operations. Anti-masking and climate change denialism are just the latest toxic outputs from this industry. It's very disappointing to see a scientist complain about scientific illiteracy and then attack the wrong people for it.

juskrey 6y ago

Nowadays I see much more overeducated people who are blind to obvious real life things, helpless, sick and overdependent on government.

treeman79 6y ago

https://drhoffman.com/article/15-reasons-why-most-health-studies-are-wrong/ https://drhoffman.com/article/15-reasons-why-most-health-stu... Most studies are wrong.

scythe 6y ago

Readers familiar with Quillette may wonder why such a level-headed essay by a somewhat well-known author appears here and not on the website of a more respectable publication. This is why: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/10/lawrence-krauss-sexual-misconduct-me-too-arizona-state/573844/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/10/lawrence... It turns out that when people are kicked out, they don't just disappear. Dr. Krauss makes his point well; it's a shame the essay won't have the impact it should. But should he have that impact? I really don't know.

sleepysysadmin 6y ago

"Topic" illiteracy is acceptable because people can only know so much. Nobody ever talks about the illiteracy in terms of 'trees are air.' or 'lasers are focused light' both of which are not common knowledge. Most people think Trees come from the ground and lasers are focused sound. "Scientific Illiteracy" is almost always not about knowledge but rather political policy. Or in his words "scientific facts people may remember." That's why Amy Coney Barrett's vague non-answer is being construed as science illiteracy. While Kamala Harris is being portrayed as the winner. ACB is not giving any answer, she outright says she's keeping her nose out of the political issue. There's no answer whether or not she believes in climate change. >Inappropriate claims like this by politicians who want to be on the right side of science but who can’t be bothered to think about what it implies don’t help. I think this illustrates the problem. This isn't about scientific literacy, it's about politics. This has nothing to do with science.

dan-robertson 6y ago

Why is literature illiteracy so acceptable? There’s two levels of scientific illiteracy. One is in the general population, but the general population also has, for example, literature illiteracy too. The other is the topic of C.P. Snow’s famous Two Cultures essay, where the generally well educated members of society are separated into those who know about science but not the humanities and the opposite. It certainly used to be the case that those educated members of society could discuss both topics. I’ve heard a claim that one thing is the replacement of any kind of ontology for science with mathematics (ie you don’t have a theory for why the world is but merely that some equations hold), and this mathematics isn’t easy—you need a lot more than school mathematics to understand Maxwell’s equations for example.

erdos4d 6y ago

I think this whole topic misses the elephant in the room: STEM is a genetic lottery that our current economic and social system rewards with a better life and more resources. About 90% of the population are the losers in that game and they damn well know it. When humans get excluded like that, they often resent those who got the better deal and will work to nullify their advantage. With science, you can't really say "oh, that doesn't matter", so about the only realistic option is to not care about it, or proudly proclaim you don't know much about it, hence the behavior the author has witnessed. If society would even out the system, I would bet much of the impetus for this anti-science backlash would disappear.

im3w1l 6y ago
The incapable correctly fear that the capable will use the power of their positions for their own ends. When you decide who to trust, you have to make a tradeoff between how competent they are and how likely you think they have your best interests at heart.
ghaff 6y ago
>STEM is a genetic lottery that our current economic and social system rewards with a better life and more resources. I wonder to what degree that statement is flavored by tech tub developer salaries. A lot of scientists aren't especially well compensated compared to say stock traders. STEM does tend to lead to at least somewhat highish prestige occupations but it's not really a money/resources thing.