Are you scientifically literate?

[Ronja]

You guys couldn't just do the test and chill, could you?

I don't think you know where you are

Not yet he doesn't - give him time... :twisted:

[maiforpeace]

You guys couldn't just do the test and chill, could you?

I don't think you know where you are

It's also a predominantly atheist forum...you know us atheists, we worship science.

[Eddie]

You guys couldn't just do the test and chill, could you?

I don't think you know where you are

Not yet he doesn't - give him time... :twisted:

Like a newborn I am gradually collecting awarness and figuring out who's who here.

Seriously it's a nice test with some pretty much basic questions from all fields of science, but I don't see it being very valid on determining one's scientific literacy. I don't think that such test is possible either.
As you grow older you focus on certain areas, mostly those you need in life, or those you are interested in, and sometimes forget even some basic stuff from primary school. And even if you do, you always know where to look if you need anything. It's more about than simply memorizing the facts, and more about being well informed and not letting others exploit your ignorance.

I always hated physics, it's given me a headache just thinking about it, so if I don't remember Newton's laws of motion but if someone tries to convince me they are wrong I know well enough where to look for facts so I can tell him to fuck off.

It's also a predominantly atheist forum...you know us atheists, we worship science.

I thought forum without religious fanatics would be kinda dull.

[Atheist-Lite]

I've yet to see how being able to regurgetate a few dozen commonly noted factoids all deriving from a diverse array of disperate expert silos, and holding next to nothing common, can display a scientific understanding of the world?

[Pensioner]

I did the test and I got 70%, if any of you guys got a lower score than me you must be thick as two short planks.

[Coito ergo sum]

I always hated physics, it's given me a headache just thinking about it, so if I don't remember Newton's laws of motion but if someone tries to convince me they are wrong I know well enough where to look for facts so I can tell him to fuck off.

That is only one question out of 50. The idea is that as the number of questions increases the proficiency at answering them correctly becomes more and more indicative of general knowledge in the topics covered by the test.

And, at some point, not knowing things about, say, the solar system, rises to the level of not knowing fuck-all about the solar system. So, if you are taking, say, an astronomy quiz, and you get 50% correct, then you can pretty safely say that you didn't know the material on that test well. Naturally, one can scrutinize the test itself - maybe the questions were poorly worded, the material unreasonably difficult, or whatever.

In the case of the CSM test, the questions, IMHO, were very easy, and tended toward the very basic - like high school physics, September, chapter 2 - Newtons Laws of Motion. I mean - we're not talking high brow stuff. Or, the moons of planets - what does Europa revolve around?

Surely, very few people will get every single question right, but the test would be one indication of a general knowledge-base -- those who got over 40 of the 50 right, know a good deal. Someone getting under 30 of those right, would seem to not know much about the material.

[Coito ergo sum]

I did the test and I got 70%, if any of you guys got a lower score than me you must be thick as two short planks.

...thicker than that, actually...

[Coito ergo sum]

I've yet to see how being able to regurgetate a few dozen commonly noted factoids all deriving from a diverse array of disperate expert silos, and holding next to nothing common, can display a scientific understanding of the world?

Someone who can't answer most of those basic questions correctly doesn't know that material well. The conclusion drawn from that is that a person who doesn't know a good deal of that very basic stuff - very basic - likely doesn't have a huge command of more in-depth material. Is it possible that a person doesn't know that Europa revolves around Jupiter, for example, but his as knowledgeable about astronomy as the Astronomer Royal? Maybe. How likely is that, though? You think those literate in astronomy are likely to know what Europa is?

[Eddie]

That is only one question out of 50. The idea is that as the number of questions increases the proficiency at answering them correctly becomes more and more indicative of general knowledge in the topics covered by the test.

OK, but IMO the test would be more relevant if questions were organized by fields of science and also by difficulty within a certain field. Maybe it's about me knowing more about some topics than others but I really thought all the chemistry questions were a laugh compared to some other areas. Maybe there was even number of totally basic ones from for example physics and chemistry, I wasn't really paying attention, just answered them trying not to think too much about it.

Whatever, as I said it's just an online quiz, it doesn't really change anything, unless you're someone who can't stand to fail once in a while and have to bitch about it being too tough or too random.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

49/50 - and I knew Charon was wrong the instant i clicked - a brain fart!

[maiforpeace]

I did the test and I got 70%, if any of you guys got a lower score than me you must be thick as two short planks.

...thicker than that, actually...

[Audley Strange]

43/50 - This test is mostly a case of "Can you remember what you learned at school?" Though I don't remember ever doing Bernoulli's principle, which is surprising because I did A-level physics . - and the rest I got wrong were remembering random names of things, which I've never been good at.

.

The biggest chunk of being literate in any subject is remembering things. Remembering things may well be the most important aspect of being literate.

I disagree Coito. Cognition, understanding of material I think. It's not necessary to understand meaning to remember answers. I'd refer you to the Chinese Box idea.

If you don't remember stuff, how can you ever show that you understand a subject?

You can't, you can't understand stuff if you don't remember, but it doesn't mean you necessarily understand what you remember. As such you could train a chimp that pressing the "BANANA" button delivers a banana, but it doesn't necessarily understand meaning of "banana" or why that bunch of symbols is being used to give it one. Thus it is not literate.

[Seabass]

Well, what do we mean by "science literacy"?

In my opinion, this quiz seems to put too heavy an emphasis on memory retention of factoids and definitions.

If we consider this:

According to the United States National Center for Education Statistics, "scientific literacy is the knowledge and understanding of scientific concepts and processes required for personal decision making, participation in civic and cultural affairs, and economic productivity".[1] A scientifically literate person is defined as one who has the capacity to:
understand experiment and reasoning as well as basic scientific facts and their meaning
ask, find, or determine answers to questions derived from curiosity about everyday experiences
describe, explain, and predict natural phenomena
read with understanding articles about science in the popular press and to engage in social conversation about the validity of the conclusions
identify scientific issues underlying national and local decisions and express positions that are scientifically and technologically informed
evaluate the quality of scientific information on the basis of its source and the methods used to generate it
pose and evaluate arguments based on evidence and to apply conclusions from such arguments appropriately
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_literacy

the U.S. National Center for Education Statistics seems to consider "science literacy" as having more to do with broad understanding of scientific concepts and processes, rather than simple memory retention of factoids and definitions.


So, going by these criteria and my high school and college performance in science classes, I think it's fair to say that I am reasonably scientifically literate, yet I only scored 38 on this quiz because fuck if I can remember what a eukaryote is, or what the Greek symbol for friction is, fifteen years after college.


Now, this is not say that knowing certain scientific facts isn't part of what it is to be scientifically literate, rather my point is that you aren't necessarily scientifically illiterate for not knowing what the blazes a "blastocyst" is in your forties.

[Svartalf]

45, though I do admit some of it was from deductive work.

[Pensioner]

I did the test and I got 70%, if any of you guys got a lower score than me you must be thick as two short planks.

...thicker than that, actually...