4 ms·

To those who may think that a lack of scientific understanding by the general population is not of significant concern, I know of no better quotation than the f

by m104 17y ago

To those who may think that a lack of scientific understanding by the general population is not of significant concern, I know of no better quotation than the following: "We've arranged a civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces." - Carl Sagan, interview with Anne Kalosh, 1995

riffic 17y ago
dark ages II: dark harder!
- MaysonL 17y ago
  Indeed: I just read Dark Age Ahead by Jane Jacobs, and it's depressing. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Age-Ahead-Jane-Jacobs/dp/1400062322 http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Age-Ahead-Jane-Jacobs/dp/14000623...
kiba 17y ago
It is inefficent for everybody to learn to about science. It is better to let them specialize in whatever they're good at. This allow advanced division of labor so that we can have a really sophisticated civilization. It's a tradeoff.
- nebula 17y ago
  It is inefficient for everybody to learn to about science. I agree it's inefficient for everybody to learn advanced science; but basic science? Gravity for Newton's sake? Don't people spend around 10 years going through basic education? What are they learning in those 10 years if they can't even understand a tiny bit of how the world that we live in functions? Also, if you have read the article it's not just a failure to understand gravity, there was a severe lack of ability to apply logic (even by the TA that was teaching logic!). Well that says something about the education system. I would argue that everyone should learn at least the basics of science, and appreciate the fact that this marvelous civilization that we are living in is shaped by the very science that they don't fully comprehend.
- awi 17y ago
  Yes, it's inefficient for everybody to learn details about specific scientific subjects. What people should learn is the scientific process, how does science advance, how do we know the things we know. And they should learn how much we owe the scientific method, people should know that if not for science we would still be freezing, starving and dying of easily preventable diseases, that the comfortable lives we live today is a result of scientific thinking.
nebula 17y ago
If you have read 'God Delusion', you would see how much of that damage is already being done. And "God Strikes Back" parts in 'The Genius of Darwin' documentary: Many schools, public funded to a large extent, dump evolution in favor of 'Creationism'. A science teacher, who was interviewed believes that the Earth is less than a ten thousand years old, because God said so in that holy book.
- jeffesp 17y ago
  I don't necessarily want to start a flame war, but it is inaccurate to say "God said so in that holy book." People have added up the number of years that are mentioned in the Bible and claimed that the earth is only that old. A decent amount of Genesis can be looked at not as literal history, but a summary. This is done even by some very conservative scholars who believe that God is the creator and also believe that the earth really is as old as science says it is.
  - nebula 17y ago
    but it is inaccurate to say "God said so in that holy book." I didn't claim that God said so. I just quoted the science teacher that was interviewed. Go watch the video and wonder why Governments and parents are allowing these kind of morons to teach science. Moreover my point was not about how to interpret a particular event described in a particular book; far from it. I was expressing outrage at the fact that a science teacher would believe that the Earth is just a few thousand years old, throwing all the science in the dust bin. More importantly he is teaching the same thing to children and is getting away with it. PS: through the revealed preference of coming into the defense of the book, though I didn't find faults with it, you gave out a lot about why you made the comment. But I'm going to pass over it.
    - jeffesp 17y ago
      I wasn't responding to you directly. Your comment put forth the assertion that God said something. He didn't. It's not in the Bible and though some Christians claim it is true, that doesn't make it so. Sorry if I wasn't clear about that. PS: You can't claim to pass over something while talking about it in a PS.
barry-cotter 17y ago
That's nice. What proportion of the population is mentally capable of the abstraction and symbolic logic necessary for science? Somewhere between forty and sixteen per cent and forty would really blow my mind. For the maintenance of our way of life we don't need scientists, we need engineers (not suggesting they're scientifically ignorant) Most people are way more interested in people than things so enthusiasm for science is limited to a subset of those capable of it. Sagan was only right if you're in the context of rebuilding after a disaster and if interested amateurs have much to offer we're probably all screwed.

by m104 17y ago

riffic 17y ago

dark ages II: dark harder!

MaysonL 17y ago
Indeed: I just read Dark Age Ahead by Jane Jacobs, and it's depressing. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Age-Ahead-Jane-Jacobs/dp/1400062322 http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Age-Ahead-Jane-Jacobs/dp/14000623...

kiba 17y ago

It is inefficent for everybody to learn to about science. It is better to let them specialize in whatever they're good at. This allow advanced division of labor so that we can have a really sophisticated civilization. It's a tradeoff.

nebula 17y ago
It is inefficient for everybody to learn to about science. I agree it's inefficient for everybody to learn advanced science; but basic science? Gravity for Newton's sake? Don't people spend around 10 years going through basic education? What are they learning in those 10 years if they can't even understand a tiny bit of how the world that we live in functions? Also, if you have read the article it's not just a failure to understand gravity, there was a severe lack of ability to apply logic (even by the TA that was teaching logic!). Well that says something about the education system. I would argue that everyone should learn at least the basics of science, and appreciate the fact that this marvelous civilization that we are living in is shaped by the very science that they don't fully comprehend.
awi 17y ago
Yes, it's inefficient for everybody to learn details about specific scientific subjects. What people should learn is the scientific process, how does science advance, how do we know the things we know. And they should learn how much we owe the scientific method, people should know that if not for science we would still be freezing, starving and dying of easily preventable diseases, that the comfortable lives we live today is a result of scientific thinking.

nebula 17y ago

If you have read 'God Delusion', you would see how much of that damage is already being done. And "God Strikes Back" parts in 'The Genius of Darwin' documentary: Many schools, public funded to a large extent, dump evolution in favor of 'Creationism'. A science teacher, who was interviewed believes that the Earth is less than a ten thousand years old, because God said so in that holy book.

jeffesp 17y ago
I don't necessarily want to start a flame war, but it is inaccurate to say "God said so in that holy book." People have added up the number of years that are mentioned in the Bible and claimed that the earth is only that old. A decent amount of Genesis can be looked at not as literal history, but a summary. This is done even by some very conservative scholars who believe that God is the creator and also believe that the earth really is as old as science says it is.
- nebula 17y ago
  but it is inaccurate to say "God said so in that holy book." I didn't claim that God said so. I just quoted the science teacher that was interviewed. Go watch the video and wonder why Governments and parents are allowing these kind of morons to teach science. Moreover my point was not about how to interpret a particular event described in a particular book; far from it. I was expressing outrage at the fact that a science teacher would believe that the Earth is just a few thousand years old, throwing all the science in the dust bin. More importantly he is teaching the same thing to children and is getting away with it. PS: through the revealed preference of coming into the defense of the book, though I didn't find faults with it, you gave out a lot about why you made the comment. But I'm going to pass over it.
  - jeffesp 17y ago
    I wasn't responding to you directly. Your comment put forth the assertion that God said something. He didn't. It's not in the Bible and though some Christians claim it is true, that doesn't make it so. Sorry if I wasn't clear about that. PS: You can't claim to pass over something while talking about it in a PS.

barry-cotter 17y ago

That's nice. What proportion of the population is mentally capable of the abstraction and symbolic logic necessary for science? Somewhere between forty and sixteen per cent and forty would really blow my mind. For the maintenance of our way of life we don't need scientists, we need engineers (not suggesting they're scientifically ignorant) Most people are way more interested in people than things so enthusiasm for science is limited to a subset of those capable of it. Sagan was only right if you're in the context of rebuilding after a disaster and if interested amateurs have much to offer we're probably all screwed.