The universe is out there, waiting for you to discover it/Ethan Ziegl, Forbes
Recently, many claims appeared in the news that caused one to wonder whether as a nation (America) or as a world, humanity is a scientifically literate species. Prominent politicians and legislators as well as other citizens who debate and doubt the following issues, among others:
The safety and effectiveness of vaccines in preventing disease, the truth about the question of whether the earth's climate is changing and whether man has a part in it, whether the age of the earth is billions of years or maybe only a few thousand years and whether there is evidence of heavenly intervention.
Most attempts to measure scientific literacy focus on the question of how well people answer a series of questions that measure the respondent's knowledge of scientific facts, but it turns out that these tests do not measure scientific literacy at all.
Scientific literacy does not mean measuring the curvature or sphericity of the earth, how do you understand whether the earth is round or flat or even whether the questioner knows that the earth is round. The more we know about the world and the universe, as they are in reality, the better, as more information is always a good thing to have. But a person's scientific literacy does not depend on the question of whether a certain series of facts, laws or scientific conclusions are correct or not, but is measured by answering the following two questions:
- Do you understand what the scientific enterprise does?
- Do you have an appreciation for how scientific knowledge, understanding and applications benefit humanity?
If the answer to both questions is yes, then you are scientifically literate and have a desire to make the world a place with greater scientific literacy and at the same time understand that the more we include solid and fact-based science in the decision-making process, the better it will be for all of humanity.
But let's make sure that when you answer "yes" to both questions you really mean what you think they should mean. What is scientific practice, and what does it mean to be aware of it? At its core, science is two things at the same time, neither of which is valuable without the other: a complete package of knowledge and data relevant to a particular subject, and a process of testing and refining the conclusions that will lead to the selection of the most correct explanation.
Being aware of the scientific endeavor means having enormous respect for the people who dedicate their lives to advancing our understanding of every aspect of the universe in this way. From the device builders to the experimenters, through the data analysts to the theoreticians working on creating a super framework. Being aware of the scientific enterprise means recognizing one person's inability to navigate all areas of science, no matter how smart or talented the person is, it means recognizing the need for legitimate expertise that led to conclusions.
Being aware of doing science means all of these things and also that you can't pick your favorite conclusion and then use every piece of evidence to support it. This is the antithesis of how science works. If you answered "yes, I am aware" to the first question, this is what the answer does say.
Science has contributed to the longevity and quality of our lives
And as for the second question: do you know how to appreciate how science contributes to humanity? Based on our scientific understanding of the universe, from the tiny subatomic particles to the vast galaxies in the past few hundred years we have experienced the greatest improvements in our life expectancy that humanity has ever experienced. Those born today can expect to survive birth, infancy, childhood, adolescence, reach adulthood, middle age and live well into their seventies or more. They can expect to live healthy, active, satiated, well-nourished and disease-free lives for most of their lives.
They can expect to live these lives in temperature-controlled homes with sufficient heating and cooling, and they can communicate with every person on Earth instantly at any time, and access the full package of information that humanity has accumulated in real time. They can expect technologies that were only dreams 50 years ago and have become reality today, and for many - the technologies that seem like dreams today will become reality in their lives.
In short, they can expect improvements in their quality and longevity to a higher level than all the kings and queens of the past. And all this because humanity invested itself in learning how the universe works and how we can apply the knowledge to improve our lives. This is the meaning of scientific literacy: having an awareness of what is at the heart of scientific practice and an appreciation of what science does for humanity. If you can answer "yes" to both of these questions, then you are in luck. Not only are you scientifically literate but you are also the hope to pull humanity forward, and make the 21st century the greatest our planet has ever seen.
Articles on this topic on the Forbes website
- Too complex and does not bring ratings. Is the western world tired of science?
- Long before Gates - did the greatest entrepreneur in history live in the 17th century?
More on the subject on the Hidan site, and this time from a special evening "The Threats to Science and Reason" of the Hidan site in collaboration with Hamda
- Tal Inbar: US control of space - the end
- Gilad Diamant: The great epidemic of illusions - about New Age, science and society
- Dr.Roey Tsezana: about creationism and ordinary people
- Prof. Yoav Yair: A cynical and cunning effort is being made by certain sectors and stakeholders to attack the science of the climate
19 תגובות
A.
You didn't understand me at all. I wasn't talking about freedom of information, but about groups of people. The Internet, Facebook for example, allows people with similar opinions to unite in groups. And easy groups of similar people - cause polarization in opinions.
By restrictions I meant security, not medical or scientific information.
Miracles
You said that the freedom of information and expression leads to extremism and non-acceptance of science's positions on the entire population (maybe I misunderstood?)
That's why I'm asking if you think they should be limited.
When you say "reasonable limitations" do you also include opposition to scientific theories or an accepted medical position? Because if so, then this is a completely new definition of "reasonable limitations". This usually includes only incitement and calls for violence.
A.
A wise person would have checked carefully before risking the lives of their children by not vaccinating them. There is no reputable website that claims there is a risk in vaccines. There are countries where an unvaccinated child will not enter kindergarten or school. Anyone who does not store is an idiot, and a criminal.
Regarding the ultra-Orthodox - I was not talking about the Internet, but about group polarization.
I still don't understand what the point is about democracy. I am in favor of freedom of information and speech, within reasonable limits. Why should I have heretical reflections?
post Scriptum.
I was not really hurt.
Miracles
Arrogance is hanging people's decisions or extremes only on stupidity.
Regarding questions:
1; agree
2; Totally disagree (only partially)
3; Agree but not relevant because there is no correlation between extreme views and level of frustration
4; This may be part of the explanation for the phenomenon. But that's not the whole picture
5; There can be no connection. If you claim that the whole reason for extremism is the strengthening of the connection between people because of the Internet, then it is not relevant regarding the ultra-Orthodox.
We came to democracy because I asked about democracy and I'm interested in hearing what your answer is.
The reason given for the problems in the world more or less stems from reasons that are the lifeblood of the democratic ideology such as freedom of information and freedom to express any opinion. (Don't talk about a defensive democracy and the prohibition of incitement. This is about the non-acceptance of scientific positions in general) That is why I ask what I asked, do you have "heretical reflections".
Regarding Israel and America. According to the accepted definition they are democratic republics. I assume you mean that they are not a direct democracy. Please let's not get into an argument about definitions and agree to use the accepted definitions as a basis.
There is so much knowledge and discoveries, it's a shame that humans (and the elites) do not direct it to a place of goodness and balance, between ourselves and towards our environment.
A.
Where is arrogance???? Why don't you agree?:
1. Group polarization is an observed phenomenon.
2. Only an idiot opposes vaccines.
3. Half of the people have an IQ below 100.
4. Explanation of the US elections
5. Explanation of the situation in the ultra-Orthodox communities.
How did we get to democracy? 🙂 I hope you know that the system of government in Israel and the USA is not democratic - but republican.
In what I said, I am not attacking anyone (except for those who oppose vaccines, I would remove their testicles). I mentioned the fact that in the group there is a phenomenon of radicalization of opinions. And this is true in all directions! How did you get hurt by this???
Miracles
Even if I agree with some of what you wrote, I cannot agree with the arrogance in your response. I don't say this to offend, I really don't care that you can understand why people act in a certain way from an arrogant position. To solve everything with "everyone is stupid" is both arrogant and leads to nothing, certainly not to a way to deal with the problem. People's feeling that they don't get the truth is not unjustified. I also have no doubt that you are right that there is a connection to the Internet revolution. But I think its effect is more in the direction of increasing and allowing the phenomenon to move faster.
—
I just have a little question for you. Do you still believe in democracy? In the importance of freedom of information? Because you blame the base of liberal ideology for the problem. If we take what Maya said that democracy and liberalism is also a kind of religion, could you have heresy?
A.
The problem is not a lack of training in science - it is just the result of another phenomenon.
The phenomenon is "group polarization" - people's opinions become more extreme when they are in groups. And the problem is that today - much because of the Internet - it is easy to find a group that identifies with your opinion.
For example, take a moron who opposes vaccines. It's easy for him, or her, to find followers for this stupid idea, and it strengthens him, and of course also the unhappy group. They read "scientific articles" that reinforce their opinions, discuss the subject, tell anecdotes (and lies) and so on.
And don't forget that half of the people have an IQ below 100... so it's easy for any retarded idea to build a group.
This phenomenon explains many things - for example the elections in the USA and the dire situation in the ultra-Orthodox communities.
The general lack of trust that washes over the world does not concern the right or the left. It is related to extremism.
And Anonymous is really innocent if he still thinks it has to do with the right or the left. The media, neither left-wing nor right-wing, is simply corrupt and serves the interests of division and encouraging hatred.
Israel Hayom is not a right-wing newspaper. And Yedioth is not a left-wing newspaper. If tomorrow Bibi starts peace negotiations on the basis of Koi 48 + the right of return + all of Jerusalem, the newspaper will be in favor. But if Ederson fights with Bibi, believe me, it really won't matter what Bibi will do..
You really don't need to talk about breaking news anymore.
Even Haaretz for years printed Israel today that they call it a threat to democracy. And only a few right-wingers still think that there is a battle between the right and the left in the media.
-
In any case, the two questions the article presents completely miss the point. People don't believe scientists (or anyone actually) not because they don't understand scientific practice and certainly not because they don't know the importance of science to modern life. But it's naive to think that you just have to come and say "look what beautiful things science has brought, now you will accept everything a scientist says" it won't work period. People don't trust scientists that they really present the right data or really follow the scientific laws.
It's more important to strengthen trust as much as possible (not easy at all in our time) you can increase transparency in research funding, build and enforce ethics laws on researchers, etc...
Indeed I am against New Ageism and in favor of the pursuit of truth, but this does not change from country to country like religions. There was once a video of Richard Dawkins who took the map of the world according to the division of religions, and said that it seemed reasonable, and then he decided that those colors represented a scientific issue - why the dinosaurs became extinct. If you were born in the UK, you will believe that they went extinct because of the asteroid, if you were born in Brazil, you will believe that the mammals ate their eggs before they hatched, etc.
If the right is striving for one truth, then why is it solely responsible for spreading news that has no basis on a pedophilia network from a pizzeria and then some idiot shot into the pizzeria
Spring.
This is probably why the right won.
The right does not give up and strives for one truth. Apparently it managed to disprove the leftist ideology that the truth is multifaceted.
Father, you are fighting a losing war. I realized a long time ago that Bibi is his own trump. The public is tired of the stagnation of the current government that has not changed for many years, it is tired of all the people making money at its expense, of the economic situation that benefits others, of all the annoying elites and the petty media, so it will choose Bibi to bring change. And also to annoy the elites. Two for the price of one. Is there anything better than that?
Of course, it won't help if you send the anonymous ones to some site http://mida.org.il/ A supremely right-wing site, waging a war of attrition against all these climate scientists and their sleepy predictions.
http://mida.org.il/2016/12/22/%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%A1-%D7%94%D7%A9%D7%A7%D7%A8%D7%99-%D7%A2%D7%9C-97-%D7%9E%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%A2%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95%D7%94%D7%94%D7%AA%D7%97%D7%9E%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%92/
(Of course, this does not mean that there is nothing to say in condemning the New Agers, who sometimes seem more primitive than past generations).
Is the media leftist? For ten years Fox News has been the most watched news network in the US, and Israel Hayom is the most widely read newspaper in Israel.
This is the problem in our world today - which has been shaped by the left-wing media all over the world in recent years.
They educated the world to New Agers. That there is no single truth.
And as a result, the sage's insight: every Dalim is a man - prevails over morals and sane human rationale.
I don't think the problem is necessarily a lack of understanding of the scientific way of thinking (especially not on the issue of climate and vaccines) it is a question of trust that is gradually eroding. And not only for these scientists, but also for many other authorities. Like politicians judge doctors and journalists. We are going through a period that is characterized by a lot of lack of trust in many institutions that previously received almost automatic trust. In England they vote against the union even though almost every expert agrees. In America they elect a person who has not served in any public office. People do not automatically accept every doctor's order as in the past.
A lot of this mistrust is not unjustified even if I don't agree with all the conclusions people draw from it. Science has also earned much of its mistrust of honesty. Cigarette companies that fund cancer research centers and even contribute to research by senior researchers. Coca Cola that donates millions to universities. Scientists who serve as mercenaries of economic bodies and not only. The Milk Council and the Poultry Council (commercial bodies that serve as a source of cartel) that conduct "studies" that become the recommendations of the Ministry of Health (and often by the same doctors themselves)
And that's without referring to the pharmaceutical companies.
In short, it is not a problem of literacy or knowledge. It is a question of trust in the entire scientific establishment.
In 15 years, humans will not work - the machine will do everything
This is not exactly true
Science has indeed contributed to the eradication of diseases, but also to population explosion, and extinction of species
Science has indeed contributed to temperature-controlled houses, but also to pollution of the land and sea air
Life expectancy has indeed increased, but the years of old age and diseases have also increased, and abundance also contributes to new diseases.
Humans do have the ability to communicate more, but the quality of communication has fallen to the ground
Once the humans could hunt and pick the food from the tree, today they are enslaved to money
And most people on Earth do not have temperature controlled homes
And their lives have not become more comfortable