78% of undergrads say astrology is scientific [pdf](meinnaturwissenschaftsblog.blogspot.com)
meinnaturwissenschaftsblog.blogspot.com
78% of undergrads say astrology is scientific [pdf]
http://meinnaturwissenschaftsblog.blogspot.com/2013/02/astrology-beliefs-among-undergraduate.html
8 comments
it means that the public's understanding of astrology's pseudoscientific status is so limited that not knowing that status isn't a fair measure of scientific literacy.
It's also evidence that the NSF questions aren't a fair measure of scientific literacy. Pretty strong evidence IMHO.
It's also evidence that the NSF questions aren't a fair measure of scientific literacy. Pretty strong evidence IMHO.
> It's also evidence that the NSF questions aren't a fair measure of scientific literacy.
Yes, unless knowing which fields are -- and are not -- scientific has been accepted as a criterion for scientific literacy. That's what's confusing about this paper -- it doesn't clearly state what the criteria are for literacy, then it argues that not knowing the standing of astrology probably isn't a useful metric.
Yes, unless knowing which fields are -- and are not -- scientific has been accepted as a criterion for scientific literacy. That's what's confusing about this paper -- it doesn't clearly state what the criteria are for literacy, then it argues that not knowing the standing of astrology probably isn't a useful metric.
I'm not sure what to make of "belief in astrology is likely not a valid indicator of scientific illiteracy"!
I'm sure you won't be sure what to make of this either!
Can a person be scientifically literate without accepting the concepts of evolution and the big bang? To many scientists and educators, the answer to that question is an unqualified “no.”
But...
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/07/26/kn...
Can a person be scientifically literate without accepting the concepts of evolution and the big bang? To many scientists and educators, the answer to that question is an unqualified “no.”
But...
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/07/26/kn...
Remember William Shockley? Nobel Prize winner?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shockley
He spent the latter years of his life arguing that black people were genetically inferior, and with a spectacular disregard for evidence.
My point? A high standing in the world of science is no assurance that a person will apply science to all aspects of his life.
So the question of scientific literacy (in the sense of general knowledge), and the question of a person's standing as "scientifically educated", are essentially separate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shockley
He spent the latter years of his life arguing that black people were genetically inferior, and with a spectacular disregard for evidence.
My point? A high standing in the world of science is no assurance that a person will apply science to all aspects of his life.
So the question of scientific literacy (in the sense of general knowledge), and the question of a person's standing as "scientifically educated", are essentially separate.
[deleted](1)
In case that explanation was too subtle, it means that the public's understanding of astrology's pseudoscientific status is so limited that not knowing that status isn't a fair measure of scientific literacy.
Well, okay, but deplorable nevertheless.