How do we fix the scientific illiteracy that threatens the world?

[Tammuz]

I don't really know where to put this thread, but it is kinda political, so let's give it a try here.

“We've arranged a global civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.” - Carl Sagan, in The Demon-Haunted World, from 1995.

I don't think anyone can dispute the accuracy of this statement. From our non-action with regards to climate change (which is technologically perfectly possible to fix, there is just no political will, which later generations will pay a heavy price for), to the world's inept handling of the current corona virus, to the utter unpreparedness in case of another massive solar storm (which is very likely to happen at some point during this century if I understand it correctly), to the potentially coming antimicrobial resistance, and lots of other issues as well.

In short, the world is facing lots of problems that at some level are connected to science, and the world is very ill-prepared to handle them, and in lots of cases looks the other way. This is obviously not sustainable. How do we fix this?

 

[TSwizzle]

The world is not threatened by any of those things.

 

[steve_bank]

Emulate China. An ideology maintained and impressed by an authoterian central authority.

Simply mandate all citizens have basic skills with calculus. And of course that would work...

All attempts at educational uniformity over he last few decades and administrations have generally failed to significantly improve even basic literacy.

In Hartford Ct in the 70s Pratt & Whitney had to institute remedial math training for new HS grads. They did not have the basic skills retiring skilled machinists and metal workers had.

Arithmetic, trig, and geometry. I went for a temp job in box factory and was given a mat test with fractions. They could not find people who could work with fractions required to set up machines.

From what I get from news reports wrote learning of basic math skills is no longer used or is on the way out.

From what I read the early 20th century public education system was geared in part to asimale immigrants and provide three levels of HS graduates.

The top level was people destined for college. A small percentage.

The middle was a facility in basic math and literacy to enter positions in business and manufacturing.

The bottom were drop outs who need some math skills and enough literacy to read.

Today we seem to be trying to create a uniform education across all strata. Not going to happen. At least where I was in the 70s community colleges served in part as remedial literacy and math education for HS grads. HS grads did not have the basic skills for entry level jobs.

In my own case I had an aunt who m mentored me somewhat in school. I would have been toast without that. Plus the structure in the RCC schools.

Family environment is critical.

 

[Bronzeage]

Announce a hugathon for people who think the Covid19 crisis is a hoax. Within six months, average scientific literacy of the remaining population will be measurably higher.

 

[steve_bank]

I have been listening to Coast To Coast AM on the radio. In large part conspiracy theory and pseudo scince.

It is a mix of real science at times and pseudo crank science. People believe it.

Some of it is harmless, some IMO is dangerous. That is free speech, or at least as we see it.

If an idiot like Trump can get elected then we are doomed on science.

 

[TSwizzle]

Then elect someone else in November and all your worries will be over. So simple.

 

[skepticalbip]

How do we fix the scientific illiteracy that threatens the world?

Are you suggesting that we ban all liberal arts and only teach the sciences?

 

[steve_bank]

How do we fix the scientific illiteracy that threatens the world?

Are you suggesting that we ban all liberal arts and only teach the sciences?

At the college level that is what is happening. To get a job get a STEM or business degree.

Science Technology Engineering Math STEM

 

[skepticalbip]

How do we fix the scientific illiteracy that threatens the world?

Are you suggesting that we ban all liberal arts and only teach the sciences?

At the college level that is what is happening. To get a job get a STEM or business degree.

Science Technology Engineering Math STEM

That is the same advice that was given to high school seniors in the 1960s only they hadn't yet invented the acronym.

 

[Patooka]

How do we fix the scientific illiteracy that threatens the world?

Remove the safety warning labels off prescription medicines and let the good god Darwin sort it out.

 

[Elixir]

There has never been a time in human history when "the average person" was intellectually equipped to understand the things that were on the cutting edge of STEM subjects, such as they were. And there never will be such a time. Steve observes that "If an idiot like Trump can get elected then we are doomed on science" and I would only add the observation than Donald Trump is the President of the United States of America.
Collectively we are no more ignorant of science than those who came before us, there is simply a greater reliance upon science now than ever in human history. Science has been leveraged to allow the ballooning of human populations, creating unprecedented potential for pandemics, famine, social chaos and mass mortality. This has been allowed to proceed unabated to this point, where loss of biodiversity and environmental upheaval has made a precipitous decline of human population numbers in the not-too-distant future inevitable.

 

[rousseau]

There has never been a time in human history when "the average person" was intellectually equipped to understand the things that were on the cutting edge of STEM subjects, such as they were. And there never will be such a time. Steve observes that "If an idiot like Trump can get elected then we are doomed on science" and I would only add the observation than Donald Trump is the President of the United States of America.
Collectively we are no more ignorant of science than those who came before us, there is simply a greater reliance upon science now than ever in human history. Science has been leveraged to allow the ballooning of human populations, creating unprecedented potential for pandemics, famine, social chaos and mass mortality. This has been allowed to proceed unabated to this point, where loss of biodiversity and environmental upheaval has made a precipitous decline of population number in the not-too-distant future inevitable.

Completely on point. It's funny how many people are convinced that science is going to be our savior, when in practice it's done far more long-term damage than good.

On the other hand, one could argue that it's been an inevitable course of our history, so no point getting angsty about it.

 

[abaddon]

I agree with the "science isn't our savior" theme.

What matters here is values. If you're worried about climate change (and hopefully the other ecological issues also), everyone knowing the science behind why they happen isn't necessary. Respecting science would help some. But far better than that, respecting nature enough to take up more ecocentric values.

It's not clear that the fix to the ecological crises is a few policy or technical changes. The crises happen because of how fixated people are on making the earth's environment comfortable to the one single species. Changing that requires a paradigm shift, not increased technical proficiency among everyone, since what you want is for them to vote different and live different, not for each person to explain the problems in better detail or being more skilled at fucking things up.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

There has never been a time in human history when "the average person" was intellectually equipped to understand the things that were on the cutting edge of STEM subjects, such as they were. And there never will be such a time. Steve observes that "If an idiot like Trump can get elected then we are doomed on science" and I would only add the observation than Donald Trump is the President of the United States of America.
Collectively we are no more ignorant of science than those who came before us, there is simply a greater reliance upon science now than ever in human history. Science has been leveraged to allow the ballooning of human populations, creating unprecedented potential for pandemics, famine, social chaos and mass mortality. This has been allowed to proceed unabated to this point, where loss of biodiversity and environmental upheaval has made a precipitous decline of population number in the not-too-distant future inevitable.

Completely on point. It's funny how many people are convinced that science is going to be our savior, when in practice it's done far more long-term damage than good.

On the other hand, one could argue that it's been an inevitable course of our history, so no point getting angsty about it.

Science has not done long term damage. Human beings that are ignorant of science have certainly done long term damage.

The issue for me is one of expectation. Humanity certainly has the potential to live in a paradise but based on all evidence that has not and nor will it ever happen. In that sense we act like any other organism that has ever lived, so why are expectant that we will act any differently?

The basic problem is that there are too many of us, not that too many of us are ignorant of science. Only natural events will reduce our numbers, and there is nothing unnatural about humanity.

 

[ronburgundy]

Then elect someone else in November and all your worries will be over. So simple.

That doesn't follow from what he said, but it does illustrate the kind of basic inability to reason that is a threat to civilized society.

Steve said that Trump being elected is a symptom of the underlying stupidity and anti-science attitudes that are a problem. You're claiming that it then logically follows that Trump is cause of all problems and thus eliminating him would solve all problems.

 

[ronburgundy]

The world is not threatened by any of those things.

Yes it is. I'm guessing you think you're being clever by implying that the actual planet is not threatened. But "The world" doesn't merely refer to the literal physical planet. It has ontological and philosophical meanings that refer to human civilization as it currently exists. A "threat to the world" includes things that could destabilize/change human societies in drastic ways in relative short time period, such that within a lifetime the world as we experience it would become something very different, typically in a negative way.

If you deny that Climate Change and/or viral pandemics are not capable of such drastic societal changes, then you are part of the irrational and scientifically illiterate threat.

 

[ronburgundy]

There has never been a time in human history when "the average person" was intellectually equipped to understand the things that were on the cutting edge of STEM subjects, such as they were. And there never will be such a time. Steve observes that "If an idiot like Trump can get elected then we are doomed on science" and I would only add the observation than Donald Trump is the President of the United States of America.
Collectively we are no more ignorant of science than those who came before us, there is simply a greater reliance upon science now than ever in human history. Science has been leveraged to allow the ballooning of human populations, creating unprecedented potential for pandemics, famine, social chaos and mass mortality. This has been allowed to proceed unabated to this point, where loss of biodiversity and environmental upheaval has made a precipitous decline of population number in the not-too-distant future inevitable.

Completely on point. It's funny how many people are convinced that science is going to be our savior, when in practice it's done far more long-term damage than good.
.

That's a ridiculous statement. Imagine 1000 average random people from one of the more scientifically advanced and secular Western societies of today (b/c science has caused secularization) today and 1000 people from Western Europe in 500 AD. Take them and all their loved ones (to control for emotional attachment) and transport them back or forward in time into each others lives. After spending 5 years there, give them the choice to return. Dollars to donuts almost all the people sent to pre-science society will want to return while few of those sent to modern society would. And that's not counting the large % of those sent back in time who wouldn't have survived the 5 years.

In fact, we have a real version of this experiment in the form of today's societies that are scientifically advanced in terms of both tech and scientifically grounded beliefs vs. those that are not. Almost all migration of people is towards the more scientifically advanced societies.

Sure, without science we couldn't have the power to impact the planet in major ways, in that includes negative ways. But other than nuclear holocaust, the realisitic negative effects would only take us back closer to the type of existence that most of humanity experienced pre-science. So, science so far has vastly improved existence on balance and even it's most likely negative effects will just be to undo some of those gains.

And as for plagues and famine, they were routine events in human history. Our current situation is causing so much anxiety, b/c it is a situation that has been made so unfamiliar and uncommon to us, due to science.

 

[rousseau]

I agree with the "science isn't our savior" theme.

What matters here is values. If you're worried about climate change (and hopefully the other ecological issues also), everyone knowing the science behind why they happen isn't necessary. Respecting science would help some. But far better than that, respecting nature enough to take up more ecocentric values.

It's not clear that the fix to the ecological crises is a few policy or technical changes. The crises happen because of how fixated people are on making the earth's environment comfortable to the one single species. Changing that requires a paradigm shift, not increased technical proficiency among everyone, since what you want is for them to vote different and live different, not for each person to explain the problems in better detail or being more skilled at fucking things up.

Completely agree with this. At this stage we're better off if we understand and respect science, but we also need to realize that it's an amoral tool without a specific aim.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

And as for plagues and famine, they were routine events in human history. Our current situation is causing so much anxiety, b/c it is a situation that has been made so unfamiliar and uncommon to us, due to science.

Scientific illiteracy no doubt goes hand in hand with historical illiteracy. Scientific illiterates will naturally be historically illiterate and vice versa. Most people believe in magic creatures, magic creation and magic history, today perhaps more so than before because of natural selection.

 

[rousseau]

There has never been a time in human history when "the average person" was intellectually equipped to understand the things that were on the cutting edge of STEM subjects, such as they were. And there never will be such a time. Steve observes that "If an idiot like Trump can get elected then we are doomed on science" and I would only add the observation than Donald Trump is the President of the United States of America.
Collectively we are no more ignorant of science than those who came before us, there is simply a greater reliance upon science now than ever in human history. Science has been leveraged to allow the ballooning of human populations, creating unprecedented potential for pandemics, famine, social chaos and mass mortality. This has been allowed to proceed unabated to this point, where loss of biodiversity and environmental upheaval has made a precipitous decline of population number in the not-too-distant future inevitable.

Completely on point. It's funny how many people are convinced that science is going to be our savior, when in practice it's done far more long-term damage than good.
.

That's a ridiculous statement. Imagine 1000 average random people from one of the more scientifically advanced and secular Western societies of today (b/c science has caused secularization) today and 1000 people from Western Europe in 500 AD. Take them and all their loved ones (to control for emotional attachment) and transport them back or forward in time into each others lives. After spending 5 years there, give them the choice to return. Dollars to donuts almost all the people sent to pre-science society will want to return while few of those sent to modern society would. And that's not counting the large % of those sent back in time who wouldn't have survived the 5 years.

In fact, we have a real version of this experiment in the form of today's societies that are scientifically advanced in terms of both tech and scientifically grounded beliefs vs. those that are not. Almost all migration of people is towards the more scientifically advanced societies.

Sure, without science we couldn't have the power to impact the planet in major ways, in that includes negative ways. But other than nuclear holocaust, the realisitic negative effects would only take us back closer to the type of existence that most of humanity experienced pre-science. So, science so far has vastly improved existence on balance and even it's most likely negative effects will just be to undo some of those gains.

And as for plagues and famine, they were routine events in human history. Our current situation is causing so much anxiety, b/c it is a situation that has been made so unfamiliar and uncommon to us, due to science.

I think the fallacy here is that you can directly compare and contrast different periods of history as 'better' than others. It's quite obvious that people would rather live in the modern world due to science, but it's also true that the same comfort will have, has had, and is having an enormous cost on a very large chunk of humanity. The entire continent of Africa, for example, was certainly better off before modern times.

Which goes back to my point that the question of 'why science' is a false dichotomy, because we couldn't have controlled it's impact on the course of history anyway.