Seriously thoughtful Science Literacy in the U.S.A.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

The MANNED space program (and that is what this conversation has been about) is failed because the US went from Apollo to spending 30 years wasting time piddling around in LEO in a glorified delivery truck. And now we are soon to not even have the delivery truck.

But what I was referring to in that reply, of course, was the poster trotting out the creeky old hat that "science X should not be done until every problem on Earth is solved first."

Well said, ardeegee. Many of our current generation of scientists—in all fields of science, including medicine—originally became interested in science because of the manned space program. Kids may not understand the importance of studying the human genome, but their imaginations can and have been sparked by manned exploration of other worlds.

[djgreedo]

Originally Posted by Angst

I respectfully disagree. You place too much emphasis on exploration/colonization. What matters most is the information gained per dollar spent. We learn far more from projects like the Hubble space telescope and the Large Hadron Collider, on a per dollar basis, than we we learn from planning a mission to Mars.

To put the amount of money spent on space-related things and the LHC into perspective, (and forgive me for not remembering exact figures, but my point should be clear)...it costs about the same to run the LHC as it does to build 2 fighter jets.

People complain about the money spent on space exploration, but seem relatively comfortable with CEOs of businesses earning billions of dollars when families are struggling on minimum wages doing all the hard work that get the CEO his hugely disproportionate salary.

I realise it's difficult to see direct results of space exploration (and often science in general), but no bad can come from understanding our universe better, and most likely huge breakthroughs in science will come from the LHC and space exploration, and those breakthroughs have the potential to benefit humanity in ways we can't even dream of.

[WT Sharpe]

Kenny turned me on to a TED Talk by Dr. Susan Blackmore, psychologist and memeticist, with the words, "Love her summary of Origin of Species."

Here's that summary:

<><><>

What did Darwin say? I know you know the idea of Natural Selection, but let me just paraphrase The Origin of Species (1859) in a few sentences. What Darwin said was something like this:

• If you have creatures that vary, and that can't be doubted; I've been to the Galapegos, and I've measured the size of the beaks, and the size of the turtle shells, and so on and so on, and a hundred pages later...
• And if there is a struggle for life, such that nearly all of these creatures die, and this can't be doubted; I've read Malthus and I've calculated how long it would take for elephants to cover the whole world if they bred unrestricted and so on and so on and another hundred pages later...
• And if the very few that survive pass on to their offspring whatever it was that helped them survive; then those offspring must be better adapted to the circumstances in which all this happened than their parents were.

You see the idea? If, if, if, then. He had no concept of the idea of an algorithm, but that’s what he described in that book, and this is what we now know as the evolutionary algorithm. The principle is; you just need those three things: variation, selection, and heredity; and, as Dan Dennett puts it, “If you have those, then you must get evolution or design out of chaos without the aid of mind.”

— Susan Blackmore, “Susan Blackmore on memes and ‘temes'”, TED Talks (TED2008), February 2008.

[kennyc]

Love her summary!

....and a hundred pages later.....

[mike_bike_kite]

We were down the pub a few weeks back and the conversation turned to the possible origins of life. We were having an enlightening discussion when an American lady sitting on a table nearby asked why we weren't including creationism as an explanation. I tried to point out that religion, and simply wanting to believe things, doesn't necessarily provide a good scientific theory. She definitely didn't agree.

Oddly while sitting in the same pub last Friday night, a ghetto blaster (remember those?) about 30 yards away was blasting out the voice of an gospel preacher! We couldn't hear ourselves talk so I went over to politely ask if they could turn it down and was almost attacked by a young crew hanging out in the shadows by the African gospel church. I didn't know whether to fight, laugh or run for it! Weird.

[GlennD]

The whole debate over creationism vs. evolution has always kind of bugged me. In my mind, science and religion ask two different questions - science asks "how?", religion asks "why?". Science is based on repeatable observations, religion is based on "the evidence of things not seen".

I believe that God created man - whether He did so by guiding a natural process or by the snap of a divine finger is irrelevant to me. I also believe that He created me with a brain for a reason - He expects me to use it to try to understand His creation as well as I'm able to.

In the end I think that science and religion will intersect, as they are both searching for truth. In the meantime I don't think it's useful to argue over which is "right", they're not incompatible.

[Pablo]

Originally Posted by GlennD

In the end I think that science and religion will intersect, as they are both searching for truth. In the meantime I don't think it's useful to argue over which is "right", they're not incompatible.

The argument is not about which is right. That argument makes no sense, you cannot probe religion "right" or "wrong", it's not a scientific matter. Creationism or "intelligent design", is a religious argument, not a scientific theory. Some people are trying to sell it as rival scientific theory to evolution and teach it in schools, thereby mixing things up to their advantage.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by mike_bike_kite

We were down the pub a few weeks back and the conversation turned to the possible origins of life. We were having an enlightening discussion when an American lady sitting on a table nearby asked why we weren't including creationism as an explanation. I tried to point out that religion, and simply wanting to believe things, doesn't necessarily provide a good scientific theory. She definitely didn't agree.

Oddly while sitting in the same pub last Friday night, a ghetto blaster (remember those?) about 30 yards away was blasting out the voice of an gospel preacher! We couldn't hear ourselves talk so I went over to politely ask if they could turn it down and was almost attacked by a young crew hanging out in the shadows by the African gospel church. I didn't know whether to fight, laugh or run for it! Weird.

I was working one day with one other fellow from our shop near a man who was playing the religious station at full volume in a not so subtle attempt to inflict his religious beliefs upon all within earshot. I simply adopted the attitude of grin-and-bear-it, but my workmate cracked me up. In a voice loud enough to wake the dead, he turned to the fellow and said, "****! I hear enough of that **** in Church every ***-****ed Sunday!

[Fat Abe]

Originally Posted by djgreedo

I realise it's difficult to see direct results of space exploration (and often science in general), but no bad can come from understanding our universe better, and most likely huge breakthroughs in science will come from the LHC and space exploration, and those breakthroughs have the potential to benefit humanity in ways we can't even dream of.

As a scientist, I'm all too pleased about any money that the US can funnel toward basic research. Whatever keeps my constituency employed is good. Lol.

However, in this very long thread, many have missed the most important point concerning science education. The best and the brightest men and women on the planet are not necessarily doing scientific work. They are entering fields such as financial engineering, law, and business administration. The most dangerous invention of the 20th century was not the nuclear bomb. It was the derivative, and all the instruments that it entails: CDOs, CDS, SIVs, etc. If you want to know why there is not enough money to devote to space exploration, alternative energy, hunger, disease, global warming, etc., just take a good hard look at financial engineering and its monstrous creations. Because the average person or lawmaker has neither the math or scientific literacy to analyze a financial presentation, the crooks have gotten away with murder, plus billions of dollars of money.

http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker...&asset=&ccode=

http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker...m,ms,c,bac,faz

http://www.scribd.com/doc/30059004/3...pbook-20070226

Recommended viewing- Capitalism: A Love Story, directed by Michael Moore. Greed is more powerful than any other motivation the human race may have. That is the most fundamental law one has to understand. More important than the Theory of Evolution or Relativity. Follow the money, and you'll realize where it is being stolen or squandered. The dirtiest 4-letter word is spelled B-A-N-K.

[kennyc]

Capitalism: A Love Story looks very interesting...

[ddave]

I've scanned the beginning and end of this thread and it seems to me that many are discussing the example (evolution vs. creationism), without discussing the basic statement. That science education in the US is not has good as found in many other countries around the world. I think the topic of evolution vs. creationism is just an example, how about the basics of magnetism (one of many aspects of how a computer hard drive works), or resonance (radio, lasers, microwave ovens), laws of motion, conservation of energy (gas engines, batteries, fuel cells, solar cells, etc), and the list goes on.
I've had US taught and Russia taught engineers work for me and the russian engineer has a broader understanding of scientific concepts, by far. That science education is the US is weaker than many European countries is not just my opinion, but was confirmed by an educator I met when I voluteered to help select science curriculum in a local K-12 school.
That the NSF would try to hide these facts was the point, it seems to me, of the start of this thread. (BTW, I agree with the last post that points out that too many minds have be diverted into creative financial engineering than in more productive application of creative thinking.)

Dave

[kennyc]

Thanks for pulling us back Dave! I agree and that is the core of the issue Science Education overall!

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by Fat Abe

As a scientist, I'm all too pleased about any money that the US can funnel toward basic research. Whatever keeps my constituency employed is good. Lol.

However, in this very long thread, many have missed the most important point concerning science education. The best and the brightest men and women on the planet are not necessarily doing scientific work. They are entering fields such as financial engineering, law, and business administration. The most dangerous invention of the 20th century was not the nuclear bomb. It was the derivative, and all the instruments that it entails: CDOs, CDS, SIVs, etc. If you want to know why there is not enough money to devote to space exploration, alternative energy, hunger, disease, global warming, etc., just take a good hard look at financial engineering and its monstrous creations. Because the average person or lawmaker has neither the math or scientific literacy to analyze a financial presentation, the crooks have gotten away with murder, plus billions of dollars of money.

http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker...&asset=&ccode=

http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker...m,ms,c,bac,faz

http://www.scribd.com/doc/30059004/3...pbook-20070226

Recommended viewing- Capitalism: A Love Story, directed by Michael Moore. Greed is more powerful than any other motivation the human race may have. That is the most fundamental law one has to understand. More important than the Theory of Evolution or Relativity. Follow the money, and you'll realize where it is being stolen or squandered. The dirtiest 4-letter word is spelled B-A-N-K.

Very good points, all, but what I think most people are saying here is that everyone can benefit from having a good basic working knowledge of current scientific findings and the scientific method. Sure, not everyone needs to be able to have a thorough understanding of QED or General Relativity, but it would be nice if at least the majority people knew that there's no controversy in the scientific community about whether evolution occurred; and it would be nice if more people, especially in the U.S., weren't laboring under the delusion that the earth is less than 6,000 years old; if for no other reason than it makes us all look like bumpkins on the global stage.

In just the same way; we don't all need to be professional economists, but it would be beneficial if more people realized how shaky financial practices such as the trading in unregulated derivatives have hurt the global economy.

Originally Posted by kennyc

Capitalism: A Love Story looks very interesting...

My favorite parts of that film were the re-dubbed clips from an old biography of Jesus (the sound version of King of Kings?). In one scene, the disciples bring a sick man to Jesus and he tells the man he can do nothing for him because he has a pre-existing condition! Now that's how you make a point!

[Fat Abe]

Originally Posted by ddave

That the NSF would try to hide these facts was the point, it seems to me, of the start of this thread. (BTW, I agree with the last post that points out that too many minds have be diverted into creative financial engineering than in more productive application of creative thinking.)

The National Science Foundation is no more scientific than the National Sanitation Foundation. The latter organization tests cookware and food safety, among other things. From Wikipedia:

"In September 2008, the NSF (National Science Foundation) came under scrutiny when the agency's inspector general reported that at least 20 employees had viewed pornography at work. The report took the agency to task for not sufficiently policing its employees' Internet usage. The incident garnered some brief media attention and several of those employees were dismissed or reprimanded."

In realizing that US science education is not up to snuff, the NSF (Science org) has been using immigration as a way to maintain America's science leadership. Granted, our secondary schools are abysmal in teaching science and math, but foreign schools still maintain fairly high standards. Numerous visas are granted to foreign students. After several years of "indoctrination" into the American lifestyle, many students apply for permanent residency, followed by citizenship. I feel sorry for the nations who lend us these bright stars, only to lose them to the lure of our culture. But, this is how life works. People vote with their feet. This great melting pot known as the USA is a wonderful cauldron of innovation. Those of my generation still remember the first Apple computer and the early Intel-based computer kit from MITS (no relation to MIT). I was alive when the transistor was invented (quit laughing). We're also the first and only nation to send a man to the moon, and the first to unravel the DNA code. How much longer can we go on? Have we seen our glory days, only to become an eventual footnote in history? Who knows? I'm mentoring young people, right here, right now. I have hope.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Fat Abe

... I'm mentoring young people, right here, right now. I have hope.