Why is Science Education So Important?

[Athena]

Science is essential to democracy. A democracy needs a well educated mass to make all the decisions citizens of democracy must make, from decisions about the environment to decisions about justice. These decisions should not be based on ignorance and superstition.

[esbo]

Can you present an argument to support your stance?

 

 

Well yes lots of arguments really.

1. For a start most people are useless at science.

2. Even if you are good at it there are very few job and thee jobs there are are low paid and insecure.

3. there is far more respect for footballers, singers and actor than scientists.

4. Science does not benefit most people in fact for many it makes their lives worse, ie it takes away their jobs.

5. Much of 'science' is more political, ie global warming which is made such a fuss of is not a problem at all, it is more a religion than science.

i) First point is we will not stop global warming until we have ran out of fossil fuel.

ii) The effect of warming are good not bad (or at least not proven to be bad) ie there is more good than bad.

iii) The only positive of it is it helps preserve fossil fuel, fossil fuel running out is a real and far far far mroe serious problem.

 

6, Science is of interest for those who want to know answers though.

7 The bigger problem we face are more social and political

8 What is important to people is getting a job, few employers want scientists.

 

Science is essential to democracy. A democracy needs a well educated mass to make all the decisions citizens of democracy must make, from decisions about the environment to decisions about justice. These decisions should not be based on ignorance and superstition.

 

 

The average IQ of a democracy is 100, ie not very high.

The vote of an idiot is worth as much as the vote of genius.

Votes are usually cast based not on science but on the propaganda of those who control the media.

Few countries are true democracy's anyway, the banks run the world whoever you vote for.

[Bill Angel]

Science is essential to democracy. A democracy needs a well educated mass to make all the decisions citizens of democracy must make, from decisions about the environment to decisions about justice. These decisions should not be based on ignorance and superstition.

I agree, especially with the "decisions about justice" part. The most important civic function one could be called upon to perform is serving on a jury in a serious criminal case. Consider the situation where someone is on trial for murder and the case rests on DNA evidence. A juror needs to understand what DNA is, in order to make a decision about guilt or innocence based on such evidence.

And what about the situation where expert witnesses for the prosecution and the defense offer conflicting interpretations of the importance of such evidence? The juror has to be able to evaluate the claims of the two conflicting scientific analyses.

[swansont]

Well yes lots of arguments really.

1. For a start most people are useless at science.

2. Even if you are good at it there are very few job and thee jobs there are are low paid and insecure.

 

Having some education in science (being scientifically literate) and being a scientist are not the same thing.

3. there is far more respect for footballers, singers and actor than scientists.

Moot.

4. Science does not benefit most people in fact for many it makes their lives worse, ie it takes away their jobs.

And yet you are using a computer and the internet. If these makes your life worse, one has to question why you do such a thing.

5. Much of 'science' is more political, ie global warming which is made such a fuss of is not a problem at all, it is more a religion than science.

i) First point is we will not stop global warming until we have ran out of fossil fuel.

ii) The effect of warming are good not bad (or at least not proven to be bad) ie there is more good than bad.

iii) The only positive of it is it helps preserve fossil fuel, fossil fuel running out is a real and far far far mroe serious problem.

Science being politicized is not the fault of science, but to argue that science education is bad because of that boggles the mind. The electorate can't make an informed decision about such issues without it. While I'm sure some political persuasions like this because it makes it easier to hoodwink people into electing them, it harms society as a whole.

6, Science is of interest for those who want to know answers though.

7 The bigger problem we face are more social and political

Many social problems are tied in with science. The issue of clean water to drink and access to natural resources are two examples.

8 What is important to people is getting a job, few employers want scientists.

Many employers want people who can think critically, a skill that science education fosters.

 

The average IQ of a democracy is 100, ie not very high.

The vote of an idiot is worth as much as the vote of genius.

Votes are usually cast based not on science but on the propaganda of those who control the media.

You're basically arguing that this is preferable to having people vote based on objective truths.

[esbo]

Science i irrelevance, it is the application of science that matters.

It is just a tool in that respect, it depends whether the tool is used to provide for you or kill you.

[Arete]

Science i irrelevance, it is the application of science that matters.

It is just a tool in that respect, it depends whether the tool is used to provide for you or kill you.

 

 

So tell me, how does one go about using a tool effectively with no understanding of how the tool functions?

 

Also:

 

3. there is far more respect for footballers, singers and actor than scientists.

 

 

False. In the US the top ten most admired professions are

1. Firefighter

2. Doctor

3. Nurse

4. Scientist

5. Teacher

6. Military officer

7. Police officer

8. Clergyman

9. Farmer

10. Engineer

 

http://www.forbes.com/2006/07/28/leadership-careers-jobs-cx_tvr_0728admired.html

Edited March 15, 2013 by Arete

[esbo]

So tell me, how does one go about using a tool effectively with no understanding of how the tool functions?

 

Also:

 

 

 

False. In the US the top ten most admired professions are

1. Firefighter

2. Doctor

3. Nurse

4. Scientist

5. Teacher

6. Military officer

7. Police officer

8. Clergyman

9. Farmer

10. Engineer

 

http://www.forbes.com/2006/07/28/leadership-careers-jobs-cx_tvr_0728admired.html

 

In kids choice for careers scientist came 18th well behind vet and astronaut

 

http://shareranks.com/4780,Most-Popular-Careers-Children-Want-when-they-Grow-Up

 

The point about how a tool is used is that it does not matter who well of badly you use the tool is it is used to

create inequality.

The wealth created by scientific developments tend to remain in the hands of the few not the many.

 

For example in the USA there may be great advances in medicine by a large section of society have no

access to it because they cannot afford health care and drugs.

[Arete]

In kids choice for careers scientist came 18th well behind vet and astronaut

 

You're shifting the goalposts. You originally said that scientist are less respected that sportsmen or singers. Now its astronauts and vets ( who are arguably scientists themselves)?

 

 

For example in the USA there may be great advances in medicine by a large section of society have no access to it because they cannot afford health care and drugs.

 

This is a non sequitur.

 

In order to use the tool of science you need an understanding of how it works. E.g a pilot needs to understand Bernoulli's principle to understand how to fly a plane.

 

Just because someone without access to modern medicine doesn't get medical treatment does not make modern medical treatment ineffective.

 

It's an illogical premise.

[esbo]

You're shifting the goalposts. You originally said that scientist are less respected that sportsmen or singers. Now its astronauts and vets ( who are arguably scientists themselves)?

 

 

This is a non sequitur.

 

In order to use the tool of science you need an understanding of how it works. E.g a pilot needs to understand Bernoulli's principle to understand how to fly a plane.

 

Just because someone without access to modern medicine doesn't get medical treatment does not make modern medical treatment ineffective.

 

It's an illogical premise.

 

 

If you don't get the treatment it is very ineffective, in fact you might as well have not had the treatment at all!!

 

Not sure what the grammatical term for this!

[Arete]

If you don't get the treatment it is very ineffective, in fact you might as well have not had the treatment at all!!

 

Not sure what the grammatical term for this!

 

 

I am having a tough time trying to follow the logic of your argument.

 

Are you trying to say that the only reason science education is important, is so it can be applied as a tool, and that modern medicine is an example of how it is ineffective and therefore unimportant, because if you don't have access to medicine it can't help you?

[Consistency]

So tell me, how does one go about using a tool effectively with no understanding of how the tool functions?

You don't use it. If you don't have the mind to create it in the first place, what gives you the right to use it?

Also:

 

False. In the US the top ten most admired professions are

1. Firefighter

2. Doctor

3. Nurse

4. Scientist

5. Teacher

6. Military officer

7. Police officer

8. Clergyman

9. Farmer

10. Engineer

 

http://www.forbes.com/2006/07/28/leadership-careers-jobs-cx_tvr_0728admired.html

LOL. Funny list since it looks like a woman wrote it.

 

Most men admire professional athletes. Sports?

[Arete]

You don't use it. If you don't have the mind to create it in the first place, what gives you the right to use it?

 

So I'm guessing you invented the computer, right? And the combustion engine too?

 

 

LOL. Funny list since it looks like a woman wrote it.

 

 

Wow. Funny cause it looks like a woman wrote it? Really? Aside from the inappropriate nature of the comment, it's also about as incorrect as possible. The list itself was a survey result (i.e. determined by multiple individuals), additionally right under the title the author's first name is "Tom". They also included "athlete" as a category, and it didn't make the top 10.

Edited March 17, 2013 by Arete

[ydoaPs]

!

Moderator Note

Sexism is not tolerated. Do not post sexist remarks.

[swansont]

In kids choice for careers scientist came 18th well behind vet and astronaut

 

And kids are well-known for their perception of what's important in their lives.

[CharonY]

Yupp. Kids are big picture people. That is why we let 6 year olds write all the grants. The problem is that for some reasons we only apply for chocolate.

[Ringer]

Well yes lots of arguments really.

1. For a start most people are useless at science.

Because they're not educated in it well perhaps?

2. Even if you are good at it there are very few job and thee jobs there are are low paid and insecure.

It's not about everyone being a scientist it's about people knowing how to not get ripped off by pseudoscience.

3. there is far more respect for footballers, singers and actor than scientists.

What does respect have to do with education?

4. Science does not benefit most people in fact for many it makes their lives worse, ie it takes away their jobs.

Yeah, because no one benefits from electricity, healthcare, clean water, food, and everything else in modern life.

5. Much of 'science' is more political, ie global warming which is made such a fuss of is not a problem at all, it is more a religion than science.

i) First point is we will not stop global warming until we have ran out of fossil fuel.

ii) The effect of warming are good not bad (or at least not proven to be bad) ie there is more good than bad.

iii) The only positive of it is it helps preserve fossil fuel, fossil fuel running out is a real and far far far mroe serious problem.

Example of being pulled in by pseudoscience, and why science education is important.

7 The bigger problem we face are more social and political

And if society and politicians were better at examining evidence and coming to reasonable conclusions we could face these problems much better.

The average IQ of a democracy is 100, ie not very high.

You realize the IQ of anything is 100. It's curved so that the average is always 100.

The vote of an idiot is worth as much as the vote of genius.

Votes are usually cast based not on science but on the propaganda of those who control the media.

And wouldn't you want them to vote while having a basis in critical thinking, doing their own research, etc.