General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsArkansas Granny
(31,507 posts)Bibliovore
(185 posts)...kids who don't learn science soon become adults who don't know science.
hay rick
(7,588 posts)the long-term solution is going to be kids who do know science...
Sirveri
(4,517 posts)Can't have scientifically literate children if the adults will not provide the literacy.
Ohio Joe
(21,727 posts)steve2470
(37,457 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)What? and you thought he would look like Charles Dipshit Heston? LOL, you should see his real son Jesus Ramirez, who looks a lot like Fernando Lamas. I ask Neil about that and he didnt want to talk about it.
God, er I mean Neil got pissed and decided to come here and help us understand because we apparently were on the wrong track.
babylonsister
(171,035 posts)SunSeeker
(51,518 posts)TxDemChem
(1,918 posts)It's f'ing ridiculous
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)IrishAyes
(6,151 posts)Where they think everything they don't know or don't have is suspect. They only know 2 kinds of people: themselves and the rest of us, all commies every one. It's funny until the pickaxes come out. Then I run home and hide.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Start naming countries and ask them if they are "commie". You know, Canada, England, France...
After a few, stop and say, "Wait a sec, I thought you guys claimed Reagan won the Cold War. If the whole world went commie that sure sounds like he lost to me!"
IrishAyes
(6,151 posts)coldmountain
(802 posts)Not saying much positive about centrist NPR and PBS but it's like waving a red flag in front of these people.
IrishAyes
(6,151 posts)but they still call NPR the National Politburo Radio - if they've even heard of NPR and know the word Politburo. Which is remarkably rare. One guy was bragging to me that his girlfriend almost made it through the 11th grade in high school, and he refers to himself as an 'intellectual' even though he's ignorant as molasses. I've even mentioned PBS a couple times and had people ask me what's that.
sheshe2
(83,655 posts)K&R!
Thanks babylonsister!
n2doc
(47,953 posts)(the 1%ers) have decided that it is in their best interest to keep the proles stupid and superstitious. That way they are more easily duped by meaningless slogans and TV ads. And money that might have gone into education is diverted to for-profit prisons, military hardware and contracts, and various subsidies.
ReRe
(10,597 posts)malaise
(268,717 posts)Rec
tblue
(16,350 posts)at my kid's high school, we would be lightyears beyond where we are now. These kids are brilliant and directed and love learning new things.
90-percent
(6,828 posts)Neal forgot socially retarded and sexually spastic.
Thankfully, my hero Frank Zappa did not.
One of many examples of ignorant and proud are those austerity advocates that compare the national debt with the family budget. Completely and utterly oblivious to any understanding of basic economics.
The people running almost everything have the intellectual capability of smarter animals. Probably because they got there by literally behaving like animals. Raw predatory aggression.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are as alien to them as string theory is to a dachshund.
-90% Jimmy
I know some pretty intelligent dachshunds. Including some who knew better than to attack Iraq.
Cha
(296,868 posts)Iggo
(47,535 posts)coldmountain
(802 posts)The pride of not believing in the intellectual world. Many believe science and mathematics is a liberal trick to take their guns and bibles.
IrishAyes
(6,151 posts)So they have to demonize it to soothe their bruised egos.
A guy answered one of my letters to the editor in the local paper with one of his own, and it started out with "HYENAS!" in bold print, then went on to elaborate on "LYING HYENAS OF SOCIALISM!" He warned that the biggest lie told by Democrats, who have no spirit of truth in them, is the claim that they're not out to confiscate every gun and bible in the country. He doesn't really seem to consider liberals any kind of human at all. Which of course is a mandatory precursor to declaring a war of extermination. Believe me, the MidWest woods are full of those nutballs.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)what "the problem" is, but it's a damn desert when it comes to people that actually have some sort of answer to work toward, to measure and see if their assertion is correct or not. Not that the solution can be accomplished, because that brings up another thousand who say it can't be done. I actually agree with him, but without an proposed solution and a plan to at least try to implement it, we just keep going downhill.
Or is that too sciency?
babylonsister
(171,035 posts)accepts facts and science, it's a quandary.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)alone has published hundreds and has a YouTube channel for those too lazy or illiterate to read. Whatever problem you choose to investigate has spawned huge numbers of solutions from dozens or hundreds of sources. We have some of the best minds on the planet doing nothing else but explaining the problems and offering solutions, yet you can find them?
Is the problem simply that the answers are not being given to you in 3 minute segments between commercials on your idiot-box?
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)That measurement part - maybe they are just hot air. Great for the self-righteous to trumpet, not so good in practice perhaps.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)You see, the problem is that many of us in the older generation were completely turned off to science as children. As a gardener, I am trying to learn a little about biology/botany because they relate to what I am trying to do in my garden. And I understand something about nuclear reactions because I wrote a paper on it in high school. That's pretty much the sum of the science that I understand, and I don't understand that well. Two chemistry courses -- and I barely passed either of them. I couldn't stand them.
By the way, how many languages do you speak? Because I speak three. And I understand four. But I don't know science that well. Nobody can know everything.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Last edited Mon Jun 3, 2013, 03:14 AM - Edit history (1)
But being a cautious optimist and just in case you are serious , start here;
http://www.youtube.com/channel/HChTLu3UCjLSQ/videos
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I'm saying that I do not have a lot of the building blocks for understanding science beyond a fairly simple level.
I don't really understand how DNA works or how the planetary system fits together.
Someone told me today that nuclear energy is good because if we don't have it then radioactive substances appear in our fertilizers and in our soil. I have no response to a remark like that although it seems absurd to me.
But then here is an article on phosphorus and soil and it does not mention uranium or nuclear waste.
Was this guy just crazy or am I just ignorant?
I seem to have phosphorus in my soil. Is it because I mix my clay soil with animal manure and plant compost?
You see. These sorts of issues were just never thought of when I was a child many, many years ago. So that is why there is a science gap, and just educating children or lecturing will not solve the problem.
ReRe
(10,597 posts)And you know...that's the craziest thing. I had science classes when I was a kid. Went to college and had a whole lot more. Learned how to think. That scientific knowledge has saved my and my family's lives, and many other lives many times over. I use my science almost every day of my life. How is it our elected leaders up there seem to have no respect, no.. well, such angst for science? It's because the place has been ruled by wingers so long. Creationists. Science-deniers. Flat-earthers. Down-right religious zealots.
2014! GDit! 2014!
chervilant
(8,267 posts)I wish I was younger and he was single! (A girl can dream...)
We seldom discuss functional illiteracy, but we should. With rates near 50% (40-44%, depending on which study you cite), we have millions of adults who can read these words, but would be hard pressed to paraphrase, synopsize or explain what they've read. And, far too many among us actually believe the earth is less than eight thousand years old because science and math are just too difficult to grasp.
longship
(40,416 posts)And has a helluva saving throw versus ignorance monsters.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)tavalon
(27,985 posts)I think I missed someone great. Does he say things this magnificent all the time? Must look him up after the sleep.
babylonsister
(171,035 posts)He IS great and has no problems telling the truth or placing blame.
tavalon
(27,985 posts)I'm finally going back to work on Tuesday night after 6 weeks out for a broken shoulder, so I have to say goodbye to being awake during the day. I'm really happy to be going back to work. I work in a NICU and I miss the babies and their families.
babylonsister
(171,035 posts)and sweet dreams! I'm happy to read you're healed well enough to get back to doing the job you love. Sounds wonderful!
progressoid
(49,951 posts)My daughter saw him speak at her University. The auditorium was packed.
Kind of today's Carl Sagan.
tavalon
(27,985 posts)Last one of the evening. Time for bed.
Nay
(12,051 posts)bet there were just as many adults that didn't know science in the 50's and 60's, but back then, even if you were ignorant, you still RESPECTED science (and teachers, and learning in general) as a social good, as something that improved your life even if you didn't know fuck-all about it.
The RW changed all that by actively demonizing learning and science as liberal, or commie, or socialist, or a union boondoggle, whatever, simply for their own purposes of destroying 'liberalism.' So now we have legions of those same ignoramuses who not only don't know science, but have taken the further step of calling science (and knowledge in general) a social evil. That's a whole 'nother level of insanity.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Nay
(12,051 posts)recognized that smart/educated was better than stupid/ignorant. This is no longer the case.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)great lengths, not only to maintain that state, but to "protect" their spawn from being exposed to knowledge.
patrice
(47,992 posts)I'm afraid I have to agree with anti-religionists on this matter. Organized and institutionalized forms of spirituality can cause too many people to ADMIRE and RESPECT ignorance, especially scientific ignorance.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)It isn't that we don't know science. It is that we were taught science in such a horrible way that we don't like it.
And then there is the problem that so much of what we did learn has been proved either wrong or barely relevant.
This is a major problem, but just complaining about it won't help. I think that the nature channels and programs and films are the best way to introduce adults who were bored the first time through to the science of today.
But too few documentary films are made to explain science to adults. The films mostly assume that we know things we never had a chance to learn in school. Or worse, they deal with things with an approach that we hated when we were in school or could not understand and that makes us just feel stupid and not like we are learning.
By the way, my chemistry courses were the most boring experiences of my life. Now I find chemistry somewhat interesting. But it is really too late to change my gut reaction to just the word "science."
You should have seen my Jr. High biology teacher. If you did you would understand why so many adults don't like science.
NancyDL
(140 posts)...and it's easy to find fun things to learn. With the Internet, all we need are computers and curiosity. The learning gap that has the most impact on the world is the lack of knowledge about history, government, civics. But I think that Tyson is right in that we can TEACH the children. The adults may be lost causes, but the children are teachable, and they're THERE. We just need to figure out how to, literally, reach them. In so many areas, disseminating information has to be done by stealth.
indepat
(20,899 posts)will make sure his favorite nation is strong and prosperous. Yeah! So we don't need no stinkin' science.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts).
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)The Corporate Corruption of Science
by Jeff Short, Research Chemist
During the last half of the twentieth century, science expanded from being the foundation of technological progress, to becoming a source of guidance for ameliorating the resulting impacts. The marriage of science with public policy holds the promise of enlightened legislation, but only as long as science avoids being corrupted in the process. The scientific process assumes the highest standard of honesty from participants. But science is now routinely at the center of controversies where economic incentives to influence scientific opinion toward a consensus favorable to commercial interests are often irresistibly large. Without effective reforms, this may well lead to the neutralization of science, leaving resolution of these controversies to market forces with potentially disastrous consequences for the environment.
Although commercial interests have always sought favorable scientific opinion, the first large scale efforts began with the mid-twentieth century tobacco industry. Mounting evidence that their products were addictive and lethal prompted their sponsorship of "scientists" paid to present studies in industry journals and conferences that superficially appeared to conform to scientific principles but were actually rigged. These tactics were highly successful, allowing the industry to delay regulation for nearly half a century. The overwhelming evidence accumulated by government-supported scientists eventually led to regulation. While this might argue for the robustness of the scientific process, it also prompted adoption of increasingly sophisticated tactics, and not only by tobacco. Beginning in the late 1980s, tobacco's allies advanced the common theme of "sound science," which translated into standards of scientific proof that modern epidemiology or environmental science could rarely meet. This reflected a strategic shift from emphasis on specific issues, to a more general indictment of the legitimacy of the scientific process. The implicit targets of this campaign were largely government-supported scientists, who are the source of most of the data inimical to industry. Failure to meet the high standards of "sound science" implies the practitioners are not "sound scientists," regardless of the preponderance of evidence produced, and ignoring the fact that environmental and human health issues are intrinsically more complex than eighteenth century physics. After the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989, these new tactics found an enthusiastic proponent in Exxon Corporation.
Exxon has tried to portray the region impacted by the spill as having already been polluted by other sources, and in any case as fully recovered by the early 1990s. Their position is likely motivated by the "re-opener" clause of the civil settlement between Exxon and the governments of Alaska and the United States, which provides for up to $100 million in additional payments to cover restoration costs of any unforeseen damages. To support their position, Exxon has supported a host of studies by their consultants and launched a campaign to intimidate and discredit publicly-supported scientists whose studies are contradictory. Tactics have included misrepresentation of government data, manipulating agendas of scientific meetings, abuse of the scientific peer-review process, shadowing government field studies and groundless allegation of scientific misconduct. These attacks are possible for three reasons. First, Exxon is so powerful economically that a substantial proportion of the active participants in the small field of oil pollution research find that it pays well to advance company policy. These consultants are often asked to peer-review contributions to scientific journals, and the anonymity of the process provides an open door for abuses. Economic clout may also be an effective tool for manipulating the agendas of scientific meetings (e.g. by ensuring that Exxon-supported scientists always speak after government scientists to facilitate rebuttal). Second, while unethical, it is not illegal to publish knowingly false information in a scientific journal, provided the funding source is private. Numerous safeguards are in place to prevent publicly-supported scientists from lying in print, but these simply do not apply to their privately-funded counterparts. Third, unlike government scientists, the data and records of privately-funded scientists may be kept secret, so their research contributions may escape the scrutiny necessary to expose scientific fraud.
<>
In his last book, The Demon-Haunted World, Carl Sagan made a passionate plea for keeping science honest, lest we fall into a modern version of the dark ages. Scientific reform has yet to achieve the attention it deserves, not least because scientists like to think of themselves as above all that. But without more effective safeguards, the process and indeed the products of science may become little more than a sophisticated form of advertising, and our ability to deal effectively with the host of environmental, human health and food safety problems that face us may become seriously compromised, with potentially tragic consequences.
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)The biggest existential risks are anthropogenic and related to potential future technologies.
http://anewdomain.net/2013/04/25/oxford-future-of-humanity-institute-tech-existential-risk/
24 April 2013 Last updated at 05:42 ET
By Sean Coughlan
BBC News education correspondent
What are the greatest global threats to humanity? Are we on the verge of our own unexpected extinction?
An international team of scientists, mathematicians and philosophers at Oxford University's Future of Humanity Institute is investigating the biggest dangers.
And they argue in a research paper, Existential Risk Prevention as a Global Priority, that international policymakers must pay serious attention to the reality of species-obliterating risks. See: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1758-5899.12002/abstract
<>
Dr Bostrom believes we've entered a new kind of technological era with the capacity to threaten our future as never before. These are "threats we have no track record of surviving".
Lack of control
Likening it to a dangerous weapon in the hands of a child, he says the advance of technology has overtaken our capacity to control the possible consequences.
Experiments in areas such as synthetic biology, nanotechnology and machine intelligence are hurtling forward into the territory of the unintended and unpredictable.
Synthetic biology, where biology meets engineering, promises great medical benefits. But Dr Bostrom is concerned about unforeseen consequences in manipulating the boundaries of human biology.
Nanotechnology, working at a molecular or atomic level, could also become highly destructive if used for warfare, he argues. He has written that future governments will have a major challenge to control and restrict misuses.
There are also fears about how artificial or machine intelligence interact with the external world.
Such computer-driven "intelligence" might be a powerful tool in industry, medicine, agriculture or managing the economy.
But it also can be completely indifferent to any incidental damage.
Unintended consequences
These are not abstract concepts.
<>
More:
http://cser.org/
http://www.existential-risk.org/