Trixology

General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: elagache on February 04, 2014, 10:38:04 PM

Title: Pew Research Center science quiz.
Post by: elagache on February 04, 2014, 10:38:04 PM
Dear WeatherCat know-it-alls . . . . (http://www.canebas.org/Weather/LWC_forum/Custom_emoticons/scholarly_teacher.gif)

A neighbor sent me a interesting online quiz from the Pew Research center concerning public knowledge of of science.  You'all can also "play:"

http://www.pewresearch.org/quiz/science-knowledge/ (http://www.pewresearch.org/quiz/science-knowledge/)

The results are very interesting.  There is a report on the results here:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/09/19/the-latest-news-iq-quiz-how-our-web-visitors-stack-up-against-the-public/ (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/09/19/the-latest-news-iq-quiz-how-our-web-visitors-stack-up-against-the-public/)

However, they recommend that you take the quiz before seeing how others have done.

Enjoy!  :)

Cheers, Edouard  [cheers1]
Title: Re: Pew Research Center science quiz.
Post by: Steve on February 05, 2014, 01:51:52 PM
Edouard and quizzers,

Weren't most of those just general high school science sort of questions? I fit into the "some college" category, and none of those college classes were science other than a geography class. I found the quiz easy, and got them all correct. The only one I wasn't positively sure of was the laser question. But the results could easily be skewed, as there is no time limit, so it essentially an open book test via Google if one wants to cheat.
Title: Most folks didn't do very well (Re: Pew Research Center science quiz.)
Post by: elagache on February 05, 2014, 11:11:21 PM
Howdy Steve and WeatherCat know-it-alls,



Weren't most of those just general high school science sort of questions? I fit into the "some college" category, and none of those college classes were science other than a geography class. I found the quiz easy, and got them all correct.

Actually if you look at the questions more carefully, it isn't general science so much as the science behind current issues like fracking and climate change.  So it is investigating whether or not the voters have enough background to understand the issues they are voting on.

Getting them all correct put you in the top 7% of the original sample group that the Pew Center interviewed.  Assuming that they did a good job of getting a representative sample, that means most people aren't qualified to vote on the matters they are expected to vote on.

I think you are correct, anybody with a decent high-school science education and staying abreast of current events should have been able to get all the questions right.

Of course, I had a little fun with this one.  As I mentioned, a neighbor forwarded this to me.  I promptly then posted it onto the V-8 Buick website.  My neighbor only got 9 correct.  The guys on V-8 Buick were all reporting close to perfect.  So I explained to my neighbor:

Of course you didn't do as well  . . . .  You drive a Chevy when I drive a Buick!! (http://www.canebas.org/Weather/LWC_forum/Custom_emoticons/car_3gears.gif)

Cheers, Edouard  [cheers1]
Title: Re: Pew Research Center science quiz.
Post by: Blicj11 on February 05, 2014, 11:33:07 PM
I'm not quite as smart as Steve but I am smarter than my brother, which was my main goal. I missed one. Because I fell asleep at the wheel and clicked on true when I meant to click on false.

Quote
So it is investigating whether or not the voters have enough background to understand the issues they are voting on.
And I'm smart enough to cast an intelligent ballot, which I have to believe is a common characteristic of WeatherCat users around the world.
Title: Re: Pew Research Center science quiz.
Post by: JosBaz on February 06, 2014, 08:41:06 AM
 [lol2]

Also managed to get all 13 correct. Not sure if it because I'm an Alfa Romeo driver or a WeatherCat user. :)

Reading the report I was most surprised by the 'fact' that more than half of the public seems to think Lasers work by focusing SOUND waves! What??

Anyway... wasn't it Mark Twain who said "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
Title: Re: Pew Research Center science quiz.
Post by: mcrossley on February 06, 2014, 09:20:58 AM
And Windows users can get 13/13 too  ;)

Only 20% of people know we have a nitrogen atmosphere!  :'(
Title: Re: Pew Research Center science quiz.
Post by: Gwyfyn1 on February 06, 2014, 09:53:21 AM
It seems we Welsh are also quite clever, as I had a 100% correct. Now, whether this is because I am naturally brainy or because I drive a Dacia Duster 4x4, my wife would probably say the latter!!. Would you Elegache like some of our rain? January - 280mm; February so far 73.6mm.
Title: Wish EVERYBODY used WeatherCat!! (Re: Pew Research Center science quiz.)
Post by: elagache on February 06, 2014, 08:49:48 PM
Dear Blick, JosBaz, mcrossley, Gwyfyn1, and WeatherCat fans,  [cat]

And I'm smart enough to cast an intelligent ballot, which I have to believe is a common characteristic of WeatherCat users around the world.

 ;) . . . Hmm, do you think we should make owning WeatherCat and running a good quality weather station a prerequisite to vote?  [biggrin]

Also managed to get all 13 correct. Not sure if it because I'm an Alfa Romeo driver or a WeatherCat user. :)

Obviously both attributes contributed!!  :)

Anyway... wasn't it Mark Twain who said "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Well it is sadder than that at least in my opinion.  Lying is intentional.  It is extremely difficult to obtain the truth via statistical means.  When I was working on the methodology for my PhD I took a good hard look at statistical methods and got plenty discouraged.  I felt I would get a more reliable case using qualitative methods because the logic involved is much more straightforward.

In the modern world so much of what we are told isn't "truths," but statistic inference.  Considering how difficult it is to design studies that are truly reliable, it is most likely that the vast majority of the "truths" in our world - aren't!!  :o

And Windows users can get 13/13 too  ;)

 ;) . . .  Yeah, but you are cheatin' - what sort of car do you drive!?!?? . .  (http://www.canebas.org/Weather/LWC_forum/Custom_emoticons/small_car.gif)

Only 20% of people know we have a nitrogen atmosphere!  :'(

This surprised me as well.  As a scuba diver, nitrogen has a big role in our activities. (http://www.canebas.org/Weather/LWC_forum/Custom_emoticons/Scuba-smiley-emoticon-small.gif)  From nitrogen narcosis to decompression sickness.

It seems we Welsh are also quite clever, as I had a 100% correct. Now, whether this is because I am naturally brainy or because I drive a Dacia Duster 4x4, my wife would probably say the latter!!.

Excellent choice in motor vehicle!  :)


Would you Elegache like some of our rain? January - 280mm; February so far 73.6mm.

Well, February is looking better already.  In the first 6 days of February we have received 12 times as much rain as we got in all of January: 0.85" (22 mm)  However, obviously we need all we can get so . . . . . . send it over - ASAP!!!

Cheers, Edouard  [cheers1]
Title: Re: Pew Research Center science quiz.
Post by: Bull Winkus on February 07, 2014, 03:06:28 AM
Count me as another one who drives the right car and uses the right weather software!

A Toyota Venza & WeatherCat!!!!

Statistically speaking, since all out of 13 questions were really easy, shouldn't the graph be shaped like a hockey stick, with most folks skewed toward the high end of answers correct? Instead it was shaped like this,  [bed], only with me and my big belly in it. I noticed that the men beat the women on every question? So? That's why the girls wouldn't talk to me? They were intimidated by my superior knowledge of scientific trivia?  [interesting]

 [banghead] [banghead] [banghead]
Herb
Title: Re: Wish EVERYBODY used WeatherCat!! (Re: Pew Research Center science quiz.)
Post by: mcrossley on February 07, 2014, 07:21:08 PM
;) . . .  Yeah, but you are cheatin' - what sort of car do you drive!?!?? . . 
Ford Mondeo Estate - boring!
Title: Evidence that our education system - doesn't (Re: science quiz.)
Post by: elagache on February 07, 2014, 07:39:25 PM
Dear Herb and WeatherCat know-it-alls, (http://www.canebas.org/Weather/LWC_forum/Custom_emoticons/scholarly_teacher.gif)

Statistically speaking, since all out of 13 questions were really easy, shouldn't the graph be shaped like a hockey stick, with most folks skewed toward the high end of answers correct? Instead it was shaped like this,  [bed]

Alas, your comments should all give us all some unpleasant concerns and gave me some bad memories.

As you say, these questions should have been answered mostly correctly by anyone who graduated from high school and stayed abreast of current events.  Since being a good citizen is part of the high school curriculum and staying abreast of current events is part of being a good citizen . . . . anyone should graduated from high school should have done well.

Thus we are presented by a undeniable problem: getting a high school diploma doesn't not in any way shape or form imply that such a person in fact deserved it.

You comments reminded me of a particularly dark time in my PhD.  I had taken seriously the concepts of learning that are basically bedrock to our education system and designed a really nifty piece of artificial intelligence software to promote learning in a useful and refreshing way.

I started a set of pilot studies to confirm that the software was working as I intended and that students were indeed learning as I expected. Zero, zip, nada, no way - no learning happening at all.

After something like 6 years of twists and turns - I had nothing to write a PhD on and had to start over from scratch.

What I ended up pursuing was an idea of learning as an existential phenomena.  Instead of assuming learning happened by taking a "device" (a human being) and then storing data in it (knowledge), I concluded that learning was a fundamentally transformative process.  To make learning happen, people had to be transformed in some way so that they were (if in a small way) different people.

The intellectual movement that I was part of was basically black-balled into non-existence and most of us were thrown out of academia.  However, looking back on those experiences, I fear that society may be too wedded to old traditions of learning that simply don't work very well.  Worse, for all the hype over innovative educational schemes - it is essentially only that - hype.

Definitely another one of those not very happy thoughts . . . . . (http://www.canebas.org/Weather/LWC_forum/Custom_emoticons/pout.gif)

Edouard
Title: Re: Pew Research Center science quiz.
Post by: Bull Winkus on February 08, 2014, 11:01:50 PM
Oh, gee, sorry Edouard. I had no idea!

I've simply resigned myself to the uncertainty of human intellectual capacity. I grew up thinking of myself as being below average without realizing that the average was much lower than I had thought. While as an adult of many years, I know I'm not that smart (I've met smart people. No comparison!), but I'm increasingly surprised at the number of people I meet who stand in awe of my greatness.

I'm sure you feel the same. Cheer up! I just handed you a left handed complement.
 [biggrin]
Herb
Title: More education = less wisdom? (Re: Pew science quiz.)
Post by: elagache on February 09, 2014, 10:10:48 PM
Hi Herb and WeatherCat ponderers of world affairs,

Oh, gee, sorry Edouard. I had no idea!

I've simply resigned myself to the uncertainty of human intellectual capacity. I grew up thinking of myself as being below average without realizing that the average was much lower than I had thought. While as an adult of many years, I know I'm not that smart (I've met smart people. No comparison!), but I'm increasingly surprised at the number of people I meet who stand in awe of my greatness.

Well, as you can guess, I've thought long and hard about such things and definitely feel a gloomy outlook very much born of the idea that modern societies have bet the store on the wrong virtue: rationality rather than humanity.

For all our education, we fail to see human greatness slipping out of our grasp.  Just as an example, compare the letters written by the soldiers of the American civil war with the letters written during the Vietnam or later wars.  During the civil war, literacy was a luxury.  Those who possessed it wrote with great eloquence.  100 years later, the gut-wrenching struggles of live and death were the same for modern soldiers.  Yet, for all that modern men knew that someone of the 1860s could never know, rarely does the writings of modern soldiers stand up to their comparatively ignorant ancestors.

One of the quotes that inspired me as I worked on my PhD was one from Blaise Pascal:

The heart has reasons that reason cannot understand.

Our modern world can still find something haunting in that idea, but I fear we have allowed our hearts to slip away and in so doing we have allowed our very humanity to slip away as well.

Edouard
Title: Re: Pew Research Center science quiz.
Post by: Bull Winkus on February 10, 2014, 03:30:43 AM
If I may say so, I think you have to realize that time is a lens that pulls focus on the human condition. We can't compare the humanity of the present with that of the past. The observational point of reference is too different. When today's human race is seen by tomorrow's observers, it will look entirely different than it does now. The complexity and therefore the beauty of humanity lies not so much in the divisions inherent in so many different cultures, occupations and economic standings but in the tapestry they weave together over time.

The same could be said for all of those who took the test. All of the individuals in our society are connected in many more ways than sharing the same educational venues and mass media. Each one of us has to prioritize time and resources based on individual goals and histories. Knowing or not knowing the answer to each of the 13 questions is an attribute defined in a moment in each person's past where one opportunity was overlooked in favor of another. For no one can be all knowing.
Title: We are all human, but not as good at encountering it. (Re: science quiz.)
Post by: elagache on February 10, 2014, 09:20:22 PM
Dear Herb and WeatherCat armchair philosophers,

If I may say so, I think you have to realize that time is a lens that pulls focus on the human condition. We can't compare the humanity of the present with that of the past. The observational point of reference is too different. When today's human race is seen by tomorrow's observers, it will look entirely different than it does now. The complexity and therefore the beauty of humanity lies not so much in the divisions inherent in so many different cultures, occupations and economic standings but in the tapestry they weave together over time.

That is a very modern way of thinking about our world, but I think it is a critically flawed one and my example had a careful feature that I think reveals the point very nicely.

Ultimately human experience is objective - not subjective as our exaggerated sense of freedom would prefer.  The examples of letters written by solders has one undeniable theme everyone must face: the certainty of death.  As such, it brings forth a universal that does permit comparison even over a century.

I think it is very hard to argue that young men of the Vietnam war were most sophisticated at encountering the certainty of death than the young men who fought the Civil War.  In general, as humans become more and more burdened by the knowledge, customs, and cultures of our very complex world, the less we seem able to grapple with the very fundamental issues that characterize human life.  An obvious point that would offend many intellectuals of today is that during the time of the Civil War, religion was a important source of ideas about what make us essentially human and how we could face death with dignity.  Those same intellectuals would be very hard pressed to find in the soldier's letters from Vietnam a secular substitute that allowed those men to face death with the same dignity.

In the end, the knowledge that our modern world provides us with is of little comfort.  Science robs human beings of any divinity - instead insisting the only rational explanation is that we are some sort of anomaly or fluke.  Multiculturalism isn't the bazaar of ideas in which to indulge our freedoms, it is grim awareness that we have no cultural roots upon which we can depend.  Worst of all, freedom can be a most destructive potential wrapped in an apparently benevolent opportunity.  Freedom can be (and often is) the freedom to make a mistake.  Anyone who doubts this only need consult the divorce rate.

It seems obvious that knowledge should be helpful in conducting one's life.  However, the failure of artificial intelligence is proof enough that there is no "calculus of existence" that by itself will permit humans to succeed.  If we do not have some sort of aesthetic to guide us in sampling this bounty of information, we run the risk of knowing too much and pondering too little.  Eventually we all shall face the same harsh realities that soldiers have faced for generations.  Can we say with confidence that a high school graduate in 2014 will be better prepared to face death than one in 1914 or 1814?  I simply cannot believe that is true.

Edouard
Title: Re: Pew Research Center science quiz.
Post by: Blicj11 on February 10, 2014, 10:52:48 PM
Edouard and Herb:

Thanks for taking the time to think this stuff through and share your conclusions. I am enjoying the opportunities you are providing for the rest of us to think.

Your exchange reminded me of something I recently read from some remarks given at a gathering of lawyers in Washington, DC last year:

Does religious freedom and its open expression matter beyond one?s individual faith or particular religious persuasion?... I learned the importance of this question in a conversation 12 years ago with a Marxist economist from China who was nearing the end of a fellowship in Boston, where he had come to study two topics that were foreign to him: democracy and capitalism. I asked my friend if he had learned here anything on these topics that was surprising or unexpected. His response was immediate . . . : ?I had no idea how critical religion is to the functioning of democracy and capitalism.? . . . He continued,

?In your past, most Americans attended a church or synagogue every week. These are institutions that people respected. When you were there, from your youngest years, you were taught that you should voluntarily obey the law; that you should respect other people?s property, and not steal it. You were taught never to lie. Americans followed these rules because they had come to believe that even if the police didn?t catch them when they broke a law, God would catch them. Democracy works because most people most of the time voluntarily obey your laws.

?You can say the same for capitalism,? my friend continued. ?It works because Americans have been taught in their churches that they should keep their promises and not tell lies. An advanced economy cannot function if people cannot expect that when they sign contracts, the other people will voluntarily uphold their obligations. Capitalism works because most people voluntarily keep their promises.? . . .

[Such expressions mirror those of ] Lord John Fletcher Moulton, the great English jurist, who wrote that the probability that democracy and free markets will flourish in a nation is proportional to ?the extent of obedience to the unenforceable.?
Title: The need for objective spirituality (Re: Center science quiz.)
Post by: elagache on February 11, 2014, 10:29:01 PM
Dear Blick and WeatherCat world observers,

It's an interesting thought you bring up but it is missing one critical ingredient that I fear will undue us if not somehow dealt with.

Does religious freedom and its open expression matter beyond one?s individual faith or particular religious persuasion?... I learned the importance of this question in a conversation 12 years ago with a Marxist economist from China who was nearing the end of a fellowship in Boston, where he had come to study two topics that were foreign to him: democracy and capitalism. I asked my friend if he had learned here anything on these topics that was surprising or unexpected. His response was immediate . . . : ?I had no idea how critical religion is to the functioning of democracy and capitalism.? . . .

Alas, I fear that what is required is something much stronger that simply some kind of faith and it is something very orthogonal to how the United States has thus far unfolded.

The freedom to practice religion in whatever way we choose is a hallmark of the United States.  Yet it doesn't take much consideration to realize that is really is a disaster for the very religion that the founding fathers all insisted was the only truth: monotheism.  If there is one God, why on earth do you need thousands of different ways to worship a singular object?

I've come to realize that the founding fathers didn't mean religious freedom as we imagine it.  Think of their world in 1776.  They knew about all the Protestant faiths, they knew about Catholicism although perhaps with some distain.  Their attitude on Jews is more uncertain.  Where I think they would really start becoming troubled is when faiths like Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism are tossed into the mix.  Islam insists that man can marry 4 woman.  It is still illegal to do this in the United States, are Muslims truly free to practice their religion?  Buddhism has a fundamentally different set of cosmological assumptions and as a result a completely different set of objectives.  Hinduism is strongly polytheistic.

Whether the founding fathers realized it or not, all they really were granting was freedom to worship God in any particular tradition, and if pressed they were open in insisting that was the God in the name of Jesus Christ.  At the time, the differences between Protestant denominations and even Catholicism were small enough that there was a core of collective faith that provided the foundations for our moral conduct and political behavior.

Fast forward 200+ years and being religious . . . . has very little in common indeed.   The religions of the world clearly have stirred the pot.  However, the most damage has been in the continued disintegration of Christian traditions.  The melting pot of ideas has permitted people to reinterpret what it means to be a follower of Christ to the point that it is extremely difficult to be sure what that phrase actually means in any universal way.  Does it mean that you will faithful to your spouse until the end?  Does it means that Jesus actually will judge your conduct on "the final day?"  Does it even mean that Jesus truly is anything more than a prophet?  Certainly it has meant that you do illegal things like smoke marijuana.  It also appear to mean that well established churches can second-guess the gospels, even if those texts are undeniably clear.  Even if people turn to religion for meaning in their lives - what will they find and will this help the human race get along?  The events of 9/11/2001 don't offer any reassurance.

Having been raised Catholic and finally returning to my faith in the 1990s, I ultimately couldn't cope with the many contradictions I was uncovering, particularly in the underlying metaphysics that unpins all of Christianity.  Starting around 2000, I began a search for a unified view of existence that would explain our scientific understanding and would provide some sort of unified notion of spirituality.  I feel I've made remarkable progress based on a few key assumptions:


I truly believe there has to be an objective basis to spirituality.  If there isn't, it is worse that useless, it is justification for any sort of behavior you can decide to favor.  It is extremely unfortunate that our world has decided to relegate religion to little more than a cultural practice that people use to feel better.  Not only will such a point of view destroy the moral foundations of Western culture, ultimately it causes people to lose the very comfort that faith has provided in the past.  If we cannot find an objective basis for humans as transcending the animal world, then we are nothing more than hairless apes.  Looking out upon the world - it is looking more and more like that each day.

Edouard
Title: Re: Pew Research Center science quiz.
Post by: Bull Winkus on February 12, 2014, 09:29:03 PM
Hello there Blick and Edouard!

I think we may have strayed from the original subject a bit. Wasn't this about the 13 question test? And then there was some concern that everyone should have gotten all or almost all the questions correct, because they were so easy. But they didn't.

And now, like a snowball rolling down Capital Hill, we're discussing the decline of humanity due to modern liberal influences of religious freedom and the carnage of spirituality in being forced to adapt to a homogenous society where monotheism, and polytheism exist side by side.

Edouard, you're the OP. If this is where you want to go, then so be it.

Quote
? ?You can say the same for capitalism,? my friend continued. ?It works because Americans have been taught in their churches that they should keep their promises and not tell lies. An advanced economy cannot function if people cannot expect that when they sign contracts, the other people will voluntarily uphold their obligations. Capitalism works because most people voluntarily keep their promises.? . . . ?

I've heard this same sentiment uttered many times. The premise is that religion is the source of morality, while the state of man in the natural order, without religion, is ignorance of morality, opportunism and survival of the fittest at the expense of the weakest. I disagree with this basic polarization. In my most humble opinion morality arises from empathy which arises from family structure, social structure and human interaction at its most fundamental level for all ages of men and women. There are those who lack empathy through mental defect, and there are those who are empathetic toward people they know, but not others. Then there are the ones we might refer to as bleeding hearts who empathize with every living thing, including animals and even insects. This is an attribute of man that is wholly independent of religion. Then there is the socialization of children within the family unit, where a moral code of behavior is enforced from parental authority to progeny for the purpose of order and survival. This also is totally independent of religion.

The other side of that issue is the amoral propensity for religious zealotry through attacks on people of opposing faiths and metering out severe punishments for failure to conform to strongly held ideologies.

The monotheistic Protestant and Catholic religions eschew amoral behaviors and provide many social constructs that benefit the moralization of communities, but they are not wholly responsible for moral teaching. They merely capitalize on man's affinity for moral behavior for the benefit of evangelizing. This has benefits for both the church and the community, but even so, people still do bad things.

Quote
? If we cannot find an objective basis for humans as transcending the animal world, then we are nothing more than hairless apes.  Looking out upon the world - it is looking more and more like that each day. ?

Measure for measure, scientific principals define the physical world for our collective understanding by transcribing the analog world into digital approximations of real observations. It is a beautiful way of learning. Simply put, the two simplest integers, a one and a zero, can be used to communicate anything, no matter how complex, and with enough decimal places any error can be pushed into obscurity, but never eliminated entirely.

In my own very humble opinion, in light of our acquired knowledge of the vast and awe inspiring Universe and the numbers necessary to communicate our observations concerning it, and in light of the numbers employed to define our knowledge of man, both in current population statistics and historical population dynamics, it would be arrogant of man to believe in a spiritual after life. The ultimate realization and the only realization that conforms to observation is one which includes personal nonexistence. I didn't exist before. Now I exist. I will not exist again. I am a temporary vessel of life and knowledge, and a complex but insignificant nudge to a fraction of what matters. And, I'm OK with that.
Title: Re: Pew Research Center science quiz.
Post by: Randall75 on February 13, 2014, 02:06:50 AM
Hi WeatherCat family


 The only thing I'm going to say it is under general discussion


Now for the weather [biggrin]


 [cheers1]