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

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by dsvick

I like the shirts!! No spaghetti monster shirt though, but I did like the one with triceratops plowing the field!

Nothing about intelligent falling, either.

[cmdahler]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

Being that human beings are biologically based, I hold the opinion that evolution is the single most important field in all of science, and the basis of all biology and medicine.

(See, this is an example of where the "let's be civil" thread comes into play-- your response as a whole, not just the part I'm quoting, is blood-boilingly offensive to me and it is only through conscious will that the adjectives aren't flying.)

See, yet another benefit of getting older is a distinct (not to say utter, complete, or total) lack of concern for whether any particular opinion I hold would cause offense. Life becomes refreshingly simple at that point.

Evolution, just as an example, has zero to do with truly important science (physics, mathematics, medicine, etc.) It is a completely pointless waste of human resources to spend a dime of public money on archaeological research like this. Who cares about Lucy, and to what possible benefit can it be to know that she's 6 million years old? It's just one of those trivial, arcane bits of knowledge that make you go, "huh, imagine that." It has zero to do with curing cancer or finding a vaccine for HIV, or finally discovering a room-temperature superconducting material. In fact, I would argue that the profligate waste of time, energy, and money on what I like to call the Useless Sciences actually hinders human progress in the areas of science that actually matter by diverting funding and other resources that could be better spent elsewhere.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by cmdahler

It has zero to do with curing cancer or finding a vaccine for HIV, or finally discovering a room-temperature superconducting material.

You seem to be confusing evolution with paleontology (which you are misnaming "archeology.")

Evolution has ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING to do with curing cancer, or finding a vaccine for HIV. "Evolution" is change over time leading from mutations in the genetic code-- there is nothing that can be understood about HIV or cancer that does not come through the understanding of evolution-- and that goes for every single disease, whether caused by an external organism or by flaws within the individual's genes.

(And, FWIW, genetic algorithms-- which are based on the concept of evolution-- can be used in supercomputer modeling to search for room-temperature superconductors.)

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by cmdahler

I have a degree in physics, but the older I get, the less I care about things like evolution and cosmology. These branches of human learning have nothing to do with bettering society or improving anyone's life, so I rather suspect that the ones decrying the sad state of these useless fields of learning are mainly the ones who benefit from them: if enough people don't care, then precious funding to keep a lot of pointless archeology projects might get pulled, and a lot of archeologists might have to actually go out and get a real job. Perish the thought. Knowledge for knowledge's sake is a laudable goal, but only when all the other serious needs of society are taken care of. Otherwise, it's like sitting around reading a book when you have bills you can't pay because you haven't gone to work yet today. And even with all bills paid, in the end, who really honestly gives a flying rat's behind how many people understand evolution or cosmology?

nonsense. Archaeology and parent science, Anthropology are crucial to the understanding of "us". by definition, Anthropology is the study of; "all mankind through all time." through these sciences we have learned about genetic diseases, mutations, injuries, the effect of lifestyle on health, religion, climate changes, growth, and so many more discoveries the list would be exhaustive.

it's all well and good to beat your own professional drum but it would be best to have a modicum of understanding of the professions you intend to diss.

[cmdahler]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Science education is about teaching people to THINK, and that's perhaps the most important thing you can teach a child to do. That's why there are so many different jobs open to people who do have a science degree. It's not the subject matter of the degree that matters; it's the fact that getting to degree has (hopefully!) taught you the skill of critical thinking, and that's a skill that will repay you for the rest of your life.

Truly, and that faculty of critical thinking is what leads me to the opinion that there are Useful Sciences and Useless Sciences. That's not to say I'm arguing that the Useless Sciences are wrong, just that they essentially contribute nothing to truly important human progress. Knowledge for knowledge's sake is fine when you don't have truly pressing societal problems to solve, but it's like eating out every day when you can afford to pay your credit card bill. People in school can gain all the benefits of scientific, critical thinking and still focus on the things that really matter. Wasting time on archaeology, for example, is just that: a waste. That person with all that capacity for deductive reasoning and years of education could be doing something that really benefits society, like finding a cure for my daughter's diabetes instead of wasting their life digging useless holes in the ground so tourists will have some pottery shard to look at in a museum.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by dsvick

That one is tougher. I don't think we need any more government intervention, bureaucracy, mandates, regulations, etc.... There is far to much of that as it is. Should there be standard or core set of knowledge which all kids are taught? Yes.

That has *big* problems.
1) People agree that kids should be taught a standard core set of skills & facts. They don't agree on what those are. They don't agree on how they should be taught. All attempts to find agreements on those two aspects have failed, and will continue to fail as long as there is no one, official "correct" culture.

2) The issue of deciding on the core set is not trivial. Even aside from religious wackos (and I'm gonna say that without defining *which* religious groups are "wackos"; we can all agree there are some, right?) and really out-there special-interest-agenda groups, there are always problems with who gets to decide what gets taught. Do the textbook publishers get to promote certain topics more than others so they can sell more books about those subjects? How important is physical education--should kids know how to play baseball, how to swim, how to ride a bike? Who will make sure that kids in poor neighborhoods have the same educational opportunities as those in rich neighborhoods?

3) In order to establish a set of standards, kids who don't meet them would have to *not graduate*. Not pass on to the next grade level. While that used to happen, it was a long time ago; now, grade level is tied to age, except in very extreme cases. There is no room in the US educational system for a 12-year-old child who's doing 3rd grade history, 5th grade reading, and 8th grade math. There's not even room for a 12-year-old who, because of learning disabilities, just happens to be in the 4th grade. Standards would mean a *major* restructuring of the entire education system.

(Note to non-US readers: US grades are generally age-5, sometimes age-6 depending on when in the year the kid's birthday falls. A 12-year-old is presumed to be in 7th grade.)

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by cmdahler

See, yet another benefit of getting older is a distinct (not to say utter, complete, or total) lack of concern for whether any particular opinion I hold would cause offense. Life becomes refreshingly simple at that point.

Evolution, just as an example, has zero to do with truly important science (physics, mathematics, medicine, etc.) It is a completely pointless waste of human resources to spend a dime of public money on archaeological research like this. Who cares about Lucy, and to what possible benefit can it be to know that she's 6 million years old? It's just one of those trivial, arcane bits of knowledge that make you go, "huh, imagine that." It has zero to do with curing cancer or finding a vaccine for HIV, or finally discovering a room-temperature superconducting material. In fact, I would argue that the profligate waste of time, energy, and money on what I like to call the Useless Sciences actually hinders human progress in the areas of science that actually matter by diverting funding and other resources that could be better spent elsewhere.

finding out about "Lucy" and others of our ancestors are CRUCIAL to discovering the causes of illnesses.

Originally Posted by ardeegee

You seem to be confusing evolution with paleontology (which you are misnaming "archeology.")

Evolution has ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING to do with curing cancer, or finding a vaccine for HIV. "Evolution" is change over time leading from mutations in the genetic code-- there is nothing that can be understood about HIV or cancer that does not come through the understanding of evolution-- and that goes for every single disease, whether caused by an external organism or by flaws within the individual's genes.

(And, FWIW, genetic algorithms-- which are based on the concept of evolution-- can be used in supercomputer modeling to search for room-temperature superconductors.)

and you are confused about what the meaning of paleontology is. try looking it up.

Originally Posted by cmdahler

Truly, and that faculty of critical thinking is what leads me to the opinion that there are Useful Sciences and Useless Sciences. That's not to say I'm arguing that the Useless Sciences are wrong, just that they essentially contribute nothing to truly important human progress. Knowledge for knowledge's sake is fine when you don't have truly pressing societal problems to solve, but it's like eating out every day when you can afford to pay your credit card bill. People in school can gain all the benefits of scientific, critical thinking and still focus on the things that really matter. Wasting time on archaeology, for example, is just that: a waste. That person with all that capacity for deductive reasoning and years of education could be doing something that really benefits society, like finding a cure for my daughter's diabetes instead of wasting their life digging useless holes in the ground so tourists will have some pottery shard to look at in a museum.

and anthropologists did probably more for understanding diabetes than medical science when it was first discovered. this is where you study the Native populations and their blood disorders.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

and you are confused about what the meaning of paleontology is. try looking it up.

Weren't you "gone?" What the hell is the deal with this personal attack? I have shelf after shelf of books on paleontology and evolution a few feet away from me, all of which I have read at least once. Why don't you try looking up the meaning of "not being an asshole."

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Trying to get this thread busted, eh? All right, separate corners, both of you, and cool off.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

Weren't you "gone?" What the hell is the deal with this personal attack? I have shelf after shelf of books on paleontology and evolution a few feet away from me, all of which I have read at least once. Why don't you try looking up the meaning of "not being an asshole."

oh gee... sorry only degreed in anthropology. not a personal attack, a correction.

if I said I was gone for awhile I can't come back?

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

oh gee... sorry only degreed in anthropology. not a personal attack, a correction.

Okay, I'm sorry, too. It is just that paleontology has been the first and greatest science love of my life ever since I was one of those kids who knew the names of all dinosaurs, only I didn't grow out of it. My shelves are full of paleontology books. I spend way too much time every day reading paleontology blogs. You may not know it, but telling me that I don't know what paleontology means goes over about as well as someone telling you that you don't know what a Native American is.

And, while there is obviously overlap in paleontology and anthropology, they aren't the same. Paleontology is the study of fossils. Anthropology involves fossils, but lots of other elements, too.

if I said I was gone for awhile I can't come back?

People have been assuming that you were banned, I think.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

Nothing about intelligent falling, either.

OMG!


.

[dsvick]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

That has *big* problems.

I never said it would be easy

But there does need to some set of basic, core knowledge that should be taught in order to graduate. I'm not an educator, nor do I even pretend to be (although I'll help my kids with their math on occasion) so I don't know what the solution is, I only know that it is pretty broken when all the religious whackos and special interest groups and even just blocks of parents can have a profound impact on the scope and quality of education at the local level.

I used to live in Cleveland so I know all about how bad an education system can get.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by cmdahler

Truly, and that faculty of critical thinking is what leads me to the opinion that there are Useful Sciences and Useless Sciences. That's not to say I'm arguing that the Useless Sciences are wrong, just that they essentially contribute nothing to truly important human progress. Knowledge for knowledge's sake is fine when you don't have truly pressing societal problems to solve, but it's like eating out every day when you can afford to pay your credit card bill. People in school can gain all the benefits of scientific, critical thinking and still focus on the things that really matter. Wasting time on archaeology, for example, is just that: a waste. That person with all that capacity for deductive reasoning and years of education could be doing something that really benefits society, like finding a cure for my daughter's diabetes instead of wasting their life digging useless holes in the ground so tourists will have some pottery shard to look at in a museum.

I disagree completely with the notion of classifying sciences into good/bad/casts etc. That's almost as vile as apartheid in my mind.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I disagree completely with the notion of classifying sciences into good/bad/casts etc. That's almost as vile as apartheid in my mind.

It also seems like a very odd idea of why people become scientists. People don't say "well, I have good reasoning skills-- what problem should I apply those skills into solving?" People have an interest that turns into an obsession that-- if they are lucky, turns into a career.