4 ms·

78% of undergrads say astrology is scientific [pdf]

15 points by winestock 14y ago

lutusp 14y ago
A quote from the abstract: "We find that students’ science literacy, as defined by the National Science Foundation in its surveys of the general public, does not strongly correlate with an understanding that astrology is pseudoscientific, and therefore belief in astrology is likely not a valid indicator of scientific illiteracy." In case that explanation was too subtle, it means that the public's understanding of astrology's pseudoscientific status is so limited that not knowing that status isn't a fair measure of scientific literacy. Well, okay, but deplorable nevertheless.
- uvdiv 14y ago
  it means that the public's understanding of astrology's pseudoscientific status is so limited that not knowing that status isn't a fair measure of scientific literacy. It's also evidence that the NSF questions aren't a fair measure of scientific literacy. Pretty strong evidence IMHO.
  - lutusp 14y ago
    > It's also evidence that the NSF questions aren't a fair measure of scientific literacy. Yes, unless knowing which fields are -- and are not -- scientific has been accepted as a criterion for scientific literacy. That's what's confusing about this paper -- it doesn't clearly state what the criteria are for literacy, then it argues that not knowing the standing of astrology probably isn't a useful metric.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
Pitarou 14y ago
I'm not sure what to make of "belief in astrology is likely not a valid indicator of scientific illiteracy"!
- uvdiv 14y ago
  I'm sure you won't be sure what to make of this either! Can a person be scientifically literate without accepting the concepts of evolution and the big bang? To many scientists and educators, the answer to that question is an unqualified “no.” But... http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/07/26/knowledge-versus-belief-why-the-scientifically-literate-can-believe-silly-things/ http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/07/26/kn...
  - lutusp 14y ago
    Remember William Shockley? Nobel Prize winner? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shockley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shockley He spent the latter years of his life arguing that black people were genetically inferior, and with a spectacular disregard for evidence. My point? A high standing in the world of science is no assurance that a person will apply science to all aspects of his life. So the question of scientific literacy (in the sense of general knowledge), and the question of a person's standing as "scientifically educated", are essentially separate.

15 points by winestock 14y ago

A quote from the abstract: "We find that students’ science literacy, as defined by the National Science Foundation in its surveys of the general public, does not strongly correlate with an understanding that astrology is pseudoscientific, and therefore belief in astrology is likely not a valid indicator of scientific illiteracy." In case that explanation was too subtle, it means that the public's understanding of astrology's pseudoscientific status is so limited that not knowing that status isn't a fair measure of scientific literacy. Well, okay, but deplorable nevertheless.

uvdiv 14y ago
it means that the public's understanding of astrology's pseudoscientific status is so limited that not knowing that status isn't a fair measure of scientific literacy. It's also evidence that the NSF questions aren't a fair measure of scientific literacy. Pretty strong evidence IMHO.
- lutusp 14y ago
  > It's also evidence that the NSF questions aren't a fair measure of scientific literacy. Yes, unless knowing which fields are -- and are not -- scientific has been accepted as a criterion for scientific literacy. That's what's confusing about this paper -- it doesn't clearly state what the criteria are for literacy, then it argues that not knowing the standing of astrology probably isn't a useful metric.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

Pitarou 14y ago

I'm not sure what to make of "belief in astrology is likely not a valid indicator of scientific illiteracy"!

uvdiv 14y ago
I'm sure you won't be sure what to make of this either! Can a person be scientifically literate without accepting the concepts of evolution and the big bang? To many scientists and educators, the answer to that question is an unqualified “no.” But... http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/07/26/knowledge-versus-belief-why-the-scientifically-literate-can-believe-silly-things/ http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/07/26/kn...
- lutusp 14y ago
  Remember William Shockley? Nobel Prize winner? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shockley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shockley He spent the latter years of his life arguing that black people were genetically inferior, and with a spectacular disregard for evidence. My point? A high standing in the world of science is no assurance that a person will apply science to all aspects of his life. So the question of scientific literacy (in the sense of general knowledge), and the question of a person's standing as "scientifically educated", are essentially separate.