Do the majority of people think science is a joke? (Split from Scienceforums.net Social Networking)

[Unity+]

The problem is social networking could also bring in the trolls to this site, which clearly this site deals with.

 

There are people, like us, who take science seriously and take it in as an important aspect into understanding the Universe. Others see it as a joke. A majority of people on Earth, in fact, think of science as a joke. Most people on Facebook are the people that think science is a joke. If we invite them we will get a crowd that will most likely not benefit the community here.

 

That is just my two cents.

[iNow]

A majority of people on Earth, in fact, think of science as a joke. Most people on Facebook are the people that think science is a joke.

[Citation Needed]

 

You know, in support of scientific thinking... and basing our positions on data instead of opinion.

[Unity+]

 

[Citation Needed]

 

You know, in support of scientific thinking... and basing our positions on data instead of opinion.

It is more from experience of other people, but if you want to be that way...

 

The conclusion comes from both the diversity of geography of users that come here, here is ranking of IQ(which is an important aspect because based on assuming that one's seriousness of science comes from the ability to understand the complexities of scientific studies), here is ranking of IQ per country(on average).

 

http://www.sq.4mg.com/NationIQ.htm

 

Being that the average IQ for an American is 98, while the highest is in Hong Kong and collecting the data of internet accessibility around the world, we can make a conclusion that seriousness in the sciences(especially since in American culture the science and mathematics department is lacking and is way behind many other countries) is within either the mid or low ranges. Now, this isn't to say that it will remain this way. I bet if we increase the education quality we could have a better chance of allowing science and mathematics to become a more serious topic for many people(it should be taken seriously in the first place) and we probably could get less crackpots who would rather go for fame than facts.

 

EDIT: Also, you must look at the data of the intelligence of a regular internet user. Then, you must take into account the intelligence of a regular Facebook or Twitter user. I haven't searched this data, but from the majority of people who(from in real life situations) use such forms of communication that I have interacted with, a subjective conclusion can be made. Though, prove me wrong and I will change my position.

Edited November 16, 2013 by Unity+

[EdEarl]

It is more from experience of other people, but if you want to be that way...

 

The conclusion comes from both the diversity of geography of users that come here, here is ranking of IQ(which is an important aspect because based on assuming that one's seriousness of science comes from the ability to understand the complexities of scientific studies), here is ranking of IQ per country(on average).

 

http://www.sq.4mg.com/NationIQ.htm

 

Being that the average IQ for an American is 98, while the highest is in Hong Kong and collecting the data of internet accessibility around the world, we can make a conclusion that seriousness in the sciences(especially since in American culture the science and mathematics department is lacking and is way behind many other countries) is within either the mid or low ranges. Now, this isn't to say that it will remain this way. I bet if we increase the education quality we could have a better chance of allowing science and mathematics to become a more serious topic for many people(it should be taken seriously in the first place) and we probably could get less crackpots who would rather go for fame than facts.

 

EDIT: Also, you must look at the data of the intelligence of a regular internet user. Then, you must take into account the intelligence of a regular Facebook or Twitter user. I haven't searched this data, but from the majority of people who(from in real life situations) use such forms of communication that I have interacted with, a subjective conclusion can be made. Though, prove me wrong and I will change my position.

It seems incorrect that IQ is the relevant factor in whether people are religious v science oriented. I believe that fundamentalist religions, especially in the US, are the primary source of this conflict.

 

From: Wikipedia

 

Science and religion generally pursue knowledge of the universe using different methodologies. Science acknowledges reason, empiricism, and evidence, while religions include revelation, faith and sacredness. Despite these differences, most scientific and technical innovations prior to the Scientific revolution were achieved by societies organized by religious traditions. Much of the scientific method was pioneered first by Islamic scholars, and later by Christians. Hinduism has historically embraced reason and empiricism, holding that science brings legitimate, but incomplete knowledge of the world. Confucian thought has held different views of science over time. Most Buddhists today view science as complementary to their beliefs.

 

Events in Europe such as the Galileo affair, associated with the Scientific revolution and the Age of Enlightenment, led scholars such as John William Draper to postulate a conflict thesis, holding that religion and science conflict methodologically, factually and politically. This thesis is advanced by contemporary scientists such as Richard Dawkins, Steven Weinberg and Carl Sagan, and proposed by many creationists. While the conflict thesis remains popular for the public, it has lost favor among most contemporary historians of science.

 

Many theologians, philosophers and scientists in history have found no conflict between their faith and science. Biologist Stephen Jay Gould, other scientists, and some contemporary theologians hold that religion and science are non-overlapping magisteria, addressing fundamentally separate forms of knowledge and aspects of life. Scientists Francisco Ayala, Kenneth R. Miller and Francis Collins see no necessary conflict between religion and science. Some theologians or historians of science, including John Lennox, Thomas Berry, Brian Swimme and Ken Wilber propose an interconnection between them.

 

Public acceptance of scientific facts may be influenced by religion; many in the United States reject the idea of evolution by natural selection, especially regarding human beings. Nevertheless, the American National Academy of Sciences has written that "the evidence for evolution can be fully compatible with religious faith," a view officially endorsed by many religious denominations globally.

 

[Emphasis mine]

That IQs in the Western World have dropped 14 points in a century has been attributed to a variety of controversial causes from consumption of hamburgers to fluoride, and low IQ immigration to pesticide exposure. Whatever the cause, it does seem to be related to our modern life-style.

[Unity+]

It seems incorrect that IQ is the relevant factor in whether people are religious v science oriented. I believe that fundamentalist religions, especially in the US, are the primary source of this conflict.

 

That IQs in the Western World have dropped 14 points in a century has been attributed to a variety of controversial causes from consumption of hamburgers to fluoride, and low IQ immigration to pesticide exposure. Whatever the cause, it does seem to be related to our modern life-style.

 

 

Public acceptance of scientific facts may be influenced by religion; many in the United States reject the idea of evolution by natural selection, especially regarding human beings. Nevertheless, the American National Academy of Sciences has written that "the evidence for evolution can be fully compatible with religious faith," a view officially endorsed by many religious denominations globally.

I think the rejection of Evolution as in the Origin of all life on Earth is what is rejected the most, not the Theory of Evolution that involves the basic core of such a mechanism. Also, referring to Richard Dawkin's phrase that evolution is the "blind watch maker" I think most people of religious basis reject this notion, but don't reject the theory as a mechanism of different species of one particular family of organisms that shows the differences of species within specific places on Earth.

 

The difference in arguments and their validity is while religion may influence IQ on particular levels of denial of specific concepts of science that are proven to be laws or facts of the Universe, a majority of lack of seriousness in the fields of science and mathematics is influenced by level of IQ(though it should be considered whether the IQ test is accurate or not as a means of measuring one's ability to use logic of certain difficulties in certain circumstances).

 

Solar flares may have happened while a storm occurred this doesn't mean that the storm was caused by the solar flares, though in some ways it can affect in minor scales the magnitude of the storm, but that being very unlikely.

 

EDIT: I also think most of religious basis would reject the hypothesis of Abiogenesis because either the nonacceptance of it or the fact that it is so young that even declaring it a fact would be monstrous for it is either merely supported by broad evidence or is merely a concept that could make sense. For example, I have looked into research of the hypothesis(or theory, if you will refer to it as such) and much of it still is at most a hypothesis that is unproven, but is supported by instances(such as in the Ocean) where it doesn't even meet requirements to be considered a absolute fact of the beginning of life on Earth, though I won't reject it as a possibility.

 

EDIT2: You could also argue that simply more people are more into sports or other forms of entertainment and not in the sciences or mathematics, which could be influenced by IQ.

Edited November 16, 2013 by Unity+

[EdEarl]

A hundred years ago, I believe people were at least as religious as now and perhaps more. For sure, there was less to know, because most scientific knowledge has been discovered in the past 100 years. Moreover, mass communication as we have now did not exist, and people had much less access to information. Why would IQ be higher a hundred years ago compared to now?

[Unity+]

A hundred years ago, I believe people were at least as religious as now and perhaps more. For sure, there was less to know, because most scientific knowledge has been discovered in the past 100 years. Moreover, mass communication as we have now did not exist, and people had much less access to information. Why would IQ be higher a hundred years ago compared to now?

We would have to do more research on that end. Either people took it more to heart do to religious faith? For example, much of Galileo's research was attempting to understand the creation of God(he was a theist).

 

It could also be influenced by survival instincts. In earlier years, intelligence was required for survival and being able to use materials to produce survival tools. Knowing geometry was important for the building of structures. In today's society, since these products are more available today, the use of such tools isn't as required.

[arc]

A hundred years ago, I believe people were at least as religious as now and perhaps more. For sure, there was less to know, because most scientific knowledge has been discovered in the past 100 years. Moreover, mass communication as we have now did not exist, and people had much less access to information. Why would IQ be higher a hundred years ago compared to now?

 

The test sampling may have been more selective in the earlier finding. Does anyone know the exact criteria and selection process? I think Ed is correct, a smaller less expansive volume of material to assimilate should, I would think, increase test results.

 

It may be that in those earlier days people had commonly entertained themselves at home by reading literature aloud and engaging each other in topical discussions. And pianos and/or other musical instruments were a sought after home entertainment. I think these activities engaged the participants to a intellectually greater degree than when radio and movies came alone a short time later and displaced that earlier homemade entertainment. The electrification of society moved bedtimes later into the evening with each passing decade, and too, with each developing entertainment technology.

 

As radio matured, off air times moved later into the evenings, taking the listeners needed sleep with it. Then television came and brought new distractions that radio only partially provided. The truly intellectually vapid pastime for the masses.

 

This electric entertainment timeline runs parallel to the distractions that gradually consumed each generation. The Elvis of the fifties replace the Crosby of an earlier generation, and the pastime of watching, that is the consumption of the entertainment products, have displaced the intellectual capacity of society to a measurable degree, that is their IQ's.

[iNow]

...if you want to be that way...

You made two distinct claims. Those were:

 

1) A majority of people on Earth think of science as a joke.

2) Most people on Facebook think science is a joke.

 

Those are the assertions I asked you to support with evidence.

 

In response, you shared a link discussing average IQ. You have yet to address the actual request put to you. Would you like to try again, or will you instead stipulate that you were merely putting forth an unfounded opinion?

[Sensei]

Why would IQ be higher a hundred years ago compared to now?

 

150 years ago majority of people could not even read and write...

One of the greatest improvements in Positivism in half of XIX century was building primary schools for everybody, even the poorest peasants in villages.

 

Illiterate persons can't share their story with us, so we know how Egyptians, Romans, middle age people etc. lived only from stories written by rich nobility..

[Unity+]

You made two distinct claims. Those were:

 

1) A majority of people on Earth think of science as a joke.

2) Most people on Facebook think science is a joke.

 

Those are the assertions I asked you to support with evidence.

 

In response, you shared a link discussing average IQ. You have yet to address the actual request put to you. Would you like to try again, or will you instead stipulate that you were merely putting forth an unfounded opinion?

Or you could admit that you merely began this debate with me specifically because of our disagreements in theology. However, did present a hypothesis, for which I gave the correlation to IQ which I presented the evidence of IQ. I made the conclusion based on those two correlation, which can be related to both the instinctive need for such intelligence to survive in our community and the correlation to the popular media sources of today.

 

150 years ago majority of people could not even read and write...

One of the greatest improvements in Positivism in half of XIX century was building primary schools for everybody, even the poorest peasants in villages.

 

Illiterate persons can't share their story with us, so we know how Egyptians, Romans, middle age people etc. lived only from stories written by rich nobility..

One's ability to read and write does not always correlate with one's ability to investigate and be curious about the world. Though, it can reflect such ability.

[iNow]

Or you could admit that you merely began this debate with me specifically because of our disagreements in theology.

You're right. I could do that, but then I'd be lying since that's untrue.

 

However, did present a hypothesis, for which I gave the correlation to IQ which I presented the evidence of IQ. I made the conclusion based on those two correlation, which can be related to both the instinctive need for such intelligence to survive in our community and the correlation to the popular media sources of today.

In what way does your suggestion of correlation between IQ and feelings of science translate into the ability to conclude how a majority of people on earth and on Facebook feel about science, and whether or not that population is a majority?

 

I'll give you a hint: It doesn't. You were pulling those claims out of your ass, and you'd be wise to simply stipulate that fact.

 

Since you asked, I'll clarify. I'm not even sure what theology disagreements to which you're referring. I was giving you a hard time because you made those clearly unfounded assertions about how the "majority of people on earth" and the "majority of people on Facebook" feel about science, and did so in a post expressly discussing the importance of science.

 

My central point was to remind you and other readers that in science we should 1) back up our assertions using evidence and not anecdote, 2) avoid making conclusions based on personal opinion, and 3) recall that our personal interactions do not often serve as a valid sample by which we can extend conclusions to the rest of the population.

 

Your suggestion that a link about IQ somehow satisfies the request for you to support your claims about how the majority of people on earth feel about science shows only more profoundly how unscientifically you are approaching the subject. That's my point.

 

So, I'll ask one more time: Would you like to try again, or will you instead stipulate that you were merely putting forth an unfounded opinion?

[Unity+]

You're right. I could do that, but then I'd be lying since that's untrue.

 

In what way does your suggestion of correlation between IQ and feelings of science translate into the ability to conclude how a majority of people on earth and on Facebook feel about science, and whether or not that population is a majority?

 

I'll give you a hint: It doesn't. You were pulling those claims out of your ass, and you'd be wise to simply stipulate that fact.

 

Since you asked, I'll clarify. I'm not even sure what theology disagreements to which you're referring. I was giving you a hard time because you made those clearly unfounded assertions about how the "majority of people on earth" and the "majority of people on Facebook" feel about science, and did so in a post expressly discussing the importance of science.

 

My central point was to remind you and other readers that in science we should 1) back up our assertions using evidence and not anecdote, 2) avoid making conclusions based on personal opinion, and 3) recall that our personal interactions do not often serve as a valid sample by which we can extend conclusions to the rest of the population.

 

Your suggestion that a link about IQ somehow satisfies the request for you to support your claims about how the majority of people on earth feel about science shows only more profoundly how unscientifically you are approaching the subject. That's my point.

 

So, I'll ask one more time: Would you like to try again, or will you instead stipulate that you were merely putting forth an unfounded opinion?

Well, if you put it that way, here is an article of relevance: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2011/04/26/iq-scores-reflect-motivation-as-well-as-intelligence/

 

Since motivation is correlated with IQ, based on this article, and motivation can be linked to areas of interest(where most IQ tests are filled with mathematical and scientific questions that deal with logic), then this can be given the conclusion given before.

 

EDIT: You could also state that the way we teach science and mathematics can lead to the lack of interest in the fields of such.

Edited November 17, 2013 by Unity+

[iNow]

I'll just take that as your concession that you're unable to support your original claims. You've done little more than dig in your heels and repeat your original reply, which as I and others have already clarified for you doesn't satisfy the burden of proof for either of the specific claims you made.

 

 

You could also state that the way we teach science and mathematics can lead to the lack of interest in the fields of such.

Yes, I agree, but that's completely tangential to the original claims you made so ultimately moot.

Edited November 17, 2013 by iNow

[Unity+]

I'll just take that as your concession that you're unable to support your original claims. You've done little more than dig in your heels and repeat your original reply, which as I and others have already clarified for you doesn't satisfy the burden of proof for either of the specific claims you made.

 

 

Yes, I agree, but that's completely tangential to the original claims you made so ultimately moot.

But couldn't you also state that the way that such fields are taught does also affect the intelligence of the people learning such topics? If students are unable to learn properly the material being taught, it would ruin the understanding of such topics(linked to IQ) and ruin the motivation of such to learn the concepts.

[Sensei]

One's ability to read and write does not always correlate with one's ability to investigate and be curious about the world. Though, it can reflect such ability.

 

If you can't read, you can't gain other people knowledge and learn from past discoveries (other way than mouth to mouth, it's easy to skew).

If you can't write, you can't share your knowledge with other people and leaving sign "I was here".

Maybe some peasants or cavemen thousands years ago had some knowledge, especially in agriculture and natural medicine (f.e. how to use vegetables and herbs), but this knowledge not written by anybody get lost in time.

Edited November 17, 2013 by Sensei

[Unity+]

 

If you can't read, you can't gain other people knowledge and learn from past discoveries (other way than mouth to mouth, it's easy to skew).

If you can't write, you can't share your knowledge with other people and leaving sign "I was here".

Maybe some peasants or cavemen thousands years ago had some knowledge, especially in agriculture and natural medicine (f.e. how to use vegetables and herbs), but this knowledge not written by anybody get lost in time.

It really depends on what you mean by illiteracy. For example, most people in the United States may be illiterate because the common language is English. However, as you may know, there are millions of forms of communication. People develop some form of communication, one way or another.

 

EDIT: Oops, I had multiple threads open and changed the wrong post. My bad.

Edited November 17, 2013 by Unity+

[EdEarl]

It really depends on what you mean by illiteracy. For example, most people in the United States may be illiterate because the common language is English. However, as you may know, there are millions of forms of communication. People develop some form of communication, one way or another.

 

EDIT: Oops, I had multiple threads open and changed the wrong post. My bad.

Illiterate means unable to read and write. What does this mean, "For example, most people in the United States may be illiterate because the common language is English?"

[Unity+]

Illiterate means unable to read and write. What does this mean, "For example, most people in the United States may be illiterate because the common language is English?"

I was just trying to understand in which context he meant being illiterate in. But, now I understand what he means.

 

EDIT: The best thing to do would be to ignore what I was saying there.

Edited November 17, 2013 by Unity+

[Sensei]

Literacy world map 2007:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/Literacy_rate_world.svg

 

Illiterate means unable to read and write. What does this mean, "For example, most people in the United States may be illiterate because the common language is English?"

 

Maybe he meant secondary illiteracy..

 

 

[EdEarl]

I was just trying to understand in which context he meant being illiterate in. But, now I understand what he means.

 

EDIT: The best thing to do would be to ignore what I was saying there.

OOK. TY

[turionx2]

"See it as a joke" also depends on the field of science in question. I see the field of science that I am currently studying as misleading because the information is organized neatly and in a flat earth mentality way.

 

If most people in the sciences see the information the same way, flat earth mentality, that is what is regarded as true even though the information could be falsified. The point is for science to learn not to continue making the same mistakes as religion; that is passing off information as 100% valid even though it can be easily partly falsified and corrected by those without the flat earth mentality.

 

Not offending anyone personally.