| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Signs, Portents, and the Weather- |
| Basic-science understanding grows; so does belief in pseudoscience |
| 2007-02-18 |
| AP Story out of San Francisco - 'nuff said SAN FRANCISCO — Americans know more about basic science today than two decades ago, good news that researchers say is tempered by an unsettling growth in the belief in pseudoscience such as astrology and visits by extraterrestrials. uhhh and global warming In 1988 only about 10 percent knew enough about science to understand reports in major newspapers, a figure that grew to 28 percent by 2005, according to Jon D. Miller, a Michigan State University professor. He presented his findings Saturday at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The improvement largely reflects the requirement that all college students have at least some science courses, Miller said. This way, they can better keep up with developments through the media. A panel of researchers ... arriving in their hybrids ... expressed concern that people are giving increasing credence to pseudoscience such as visits of space aliens and horoscopes. In addition, these researchers noted an increase in college students who report they are "unsure" about creationism as compared with evolution. More recent generations know more factual material about science, said Carol Susan Losh, an associate professor at Florida State University. But, she said, when it comes to pseudoscience, "the news is not good." One problem, she said, is that pseudoscience can speak to the meaning of life in ways that science does not. For example, for many women having a good life still depends on whom they marry, she said. "What does astrology speak to? Love relationships," Losh said, noting that belief in horoscopes is much higher among women than men. The disclosure that former first lady Nancy Reagan consulted an astrologer resulted in widespread derision in the media, but few younger people remember that today, she said. Had to get in the obligitory Reagan dig. Miller said most readers of horoscopes are women, contributing to the listing of "female" as a leading negative factor in science literacy. Women also tended to take fewer college science courses, he said. But they run the House OK Belief in abduction by space aliens is also on the rise, Losh said. "It's not surprising that the generation that grew up on 'Twilight Zone' and early 'Star Trek' television endorsed a link between UFOs and alien spacecraft," she said. Pseudoscience discussion is often absent from the classroom, Losh said, so, "We have basically left it up to the media."< SPAN CLASS=HILITE>Yikes!!! Raymond Eve of the University of Texas-Arlington had mixed news in surveys of students at an unidentified Midwestern university. The share that believed aliens had visited Earth fell from 25 percent in 1983 to 15 percent in 2006. There was also a decline in belief in Bigfoot and in whether psychics can predict the future. But there also has been a drop in the number of people who believe evolution correctly explains the development of life on Earth and an increase in those who believe mankind was created about 10,000 years ago. Miller said a second major negative factor to scientific literacy was religious fundamentalism ... uhhh allans people??? ... and aging. |
| Posted by:Intrinsicpilot |
| #12 :-) |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2007-02-18 23:47 |
| #11 I do apologize, gromgoru -- I think we're using the language differently to get to the same place. I'll try to be more precise next time. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-02-18 22:12 |
| #10 ART BELL last nite vv Call-in > "I agree that Science, despite all the advancements ever made since the turn of the last century, CAN NOT ANSWER/RESOLVE EVERYTHING". |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-02-18 22:11 |
| #9 Nope. Everyone of us here does not think like that And how many of us have academic tenure? |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2007-02-18 21:50 |
| #8 You meant "without" thinking like that, didn't you TW? Nope. Everyone of us here does not think like that, excepting, of course, poor Mr. Arabi. I did mean affecting, though, not effecting. PIMF. Separately, part of the cause of the populace thinking so poorly about science is that the reporters don't know enough science to judge what they're being told, or to report about it intelligently... and I hate to think how many degreed journalists believe in the validity of astrology, and don't understand the critical difference between Darwin's theory of evolution and creationism. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-02-18 21:06 |
| #7 The late Carl Sagan was a world-class moonbat Not compared to Chomsky and his ilk. Sagan was dissed by the scientific community for his approach to popularizing science. IIRC, the nuclear winter theory was based on some Soviet computer models that turned out to be wrong. The basic idea - that dust in the atmosphere has a cooling effect - is sound. Remember the Mount Pinatubo volcano eruption? |
| Posted by: SteveS 2007-02-18 18:37 |
| #6 ...The late Carl Sagan was a world-class moonbat - his Nuclear Winter studies were some of the most badly twisted facts masquerading as science anybody's ever seen, worse than the curent Global Warming crap - but towards the end of his life he began to realize that people were turning away from science and turning toward superstition. Get his last book, The Demon-Haunted World and tell me that everything he sees in it hasn't come true. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2007-02-18 18:24 |
| #5 #3. You meant "without" thinking like that, didn't you TW? |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2007-02-18 17:34 |
| #4 In 1988 only about 10 percent knew enough about science to understand reports in major newspapers, a figure that grew to 28 percent by 2005, according to Jon D. Miller, a Michigan State University professor. There are two ways to interpret this. Since we know from test scores that Americans aren't learning as much math and science as they used to (indeed, imperiling our status as a world leader), I think we can deduce that the level of science reporting has declined. In addition, there is a much lower threshold for scientists pontificating to the press about tenuous theories which have no experimental basis whatsoever. Example: string theories involving alternate universes in adjacent dimensions. This is close to pseudoscience. When professional scientists rush to publish highly tentative theories in the press, it becomes harder for them to push back against pseudoscience. |
| Posted by: KBK 2007-02-18 17:08 |
| #3 For example, for many women having a good life still depends on whom they marry, she said. World ends. Women and children effected most. With thinking like that, the lady is never going to achieve tenure. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-02-18 15:15 |
| #2 That'd be LBJ and they were beagles... |
| Posted by: tu3031 2007-02-18 15:09 |
| #1 The disclosure that former first lady Nancy Reagan consulted an astrologer resulted in widespread derision in the media, but few younger people remember that today, she said. Odd how the good associate professor didn't notice that the younger people were generally born after Nancy Reagan's husband was in office. I recently learnt that one of the mid-century presidents was in the habit of swinging his dogs by their ears. I only hope they were beagles and not german shepherds. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-02-18 15:07 |