There’s a good reason Americans are horrible at science

[redgreenandblue]

http://qz.com/588126/theres-a-good-reason-americans-are-horrible-at-science/

The United States of America has arguably done more to advance science in the modern world than any other country on earth. From the nimble ingenuity of Silicon Valley to the ascendency of US military technology, this nation has impeccable high-tech bona fides. Many of the world’s top engineering schools are located on American soil, and we are even hanging onto our supremacy in medical research—though our lead is slipping quickly.
...
Surprisingly, despite America’s outstanding science credentials, the population at large is not science savvy. About a third of Americans think that there is no sound evidence for the existence of evolution or benefits of universal vaccination.
...
Dan Kahan and colleagues published a study in 2012 showing that survey respondents with the highest level of scientific literacy were the best equipped to argue whichever position on global warming suited their personal interests.
...
It is possible, however, to learn enough about the powers and limitations of the scientific method to intelligently determine which claims made by scientists are likely to be true and which deserve skepticism.
...
Most importantly, if we want future generations to be truly scientifically literate, we should teach our children that science is not a collection of immutable facts but a method for temporarily setting aside some of our ubiquitous human frailties,
...

Articles makes some decent points. Bottom line is that teaching rational thinking is more important than teaching facts, but the way science is taught normally emphasizes the facts over the method.

[longship]

1. Yup! Science is method, not facts.

Anybody educated in science knows this. If they don't, they are no scientist. It really is that simple.

[PJMcK]

6. You're right but with one caveat

Education brings knowledge and critical thinking. One need not be a scientist to understand the scientific method.

ETA: Thanks for posting the link to this article, redgreenandblue.

[Orsino]

12. And one more caveat.

Science really does establish facts that can and must be taught. Researchers don't reinvent the wheel; they build on existing knowledge, and even students who go on to be scientists begin their educations by learning what doesn't need to be thought of quite so critically.

[hollysmom]

2. sadly my college used to have open book tests saying that knowing how and where to look for

something was more important than memorizing, but when it was absorbed into the state university, memorization became more important. Suddenly there were monitors in tests and no more open book tests. Back when I went there We even had a challenging but small science department.

[1939]

3. I am an engineer

In all of my years of schooling and in all of my years of experience, the question of creation versus evolution has only been important in 10th grade biology and junior year Engineering Geology in college. Those were the only times that existence of te universe past 6,000 years would be in question. So far as intelligent design is concerned, nowhere in my STEM education or experience has the existence or non-existence of intelligent design made the slightest difference.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

4. But I've worked with people who proclaimed that the earth was 6000 years old.

I didn't trust their work for shit. The thought was: if you're so obviously wrong about the age of the earth, what other "truisms" have you addled your brain with?

[1939]

5. So long as you both believe that

Sine = Opposite/Hypotenuse you are OK. I can also work with a guy who thinks the Dallas Cowboys are the worlds greatest football team.

[HereSince1628]

9. I earned a PhD focusing on population biology...iow population genetics and pop ecology

Evolution was pretty important. Indeed it was the central and most essential concept along that path.

During my doctorate I took a seminar one semester which explored creation myths of other cultures and counter-arguments to evolution. It was quite interesting and left me feeling somewhat confident about my ability to deal with creationists...

Then I got my first university teaching job. That biology department had about 60 percent protestant church members among it's PhDs, and most of them quite willingly and openly defended the apologist positions for evolution that the deity they believed in created all this, but used evolution as the tool to create diversity on this planet.

After that I taught in universities in the South and North and encountered pretty much the same points of view. It all left me feeling untrustworthy about my colleagues capacity to over-rationalize to make experience fit their belief rather than the other way around.

That feeling put me in a safe and effective place when dealing with colleagues in various committees and administrative roles.

[Cassiopeia]

7. Critical thinking is no longer taught

because critical thinkers make decisions that are in their own best interests, not against them.

We didn't let the teaching of critical thinking just die off, it was targeted and killed off.

[GreatGazoo]

8. we are the last country on earth using the avoirdupois system

If we were serious about STEM then finally getting on the metric system would be part of phase 1.

During the 1950s, intellect was made synonymous with Communism. Anti-intellectualism is part of the war on culture that rages in America to this day.

[Frank Cannon]

10. America has ONE job: military protection for the world's oligarchy.

This is why we spend more on our military than all other nations combined. This is why college has become ridiculously expensive for our youth. This is why our leaders hug and French kiss the Saudi royal family, among the most repressive and repulsive regimes on Earth.

And this is also why Johnny can't read, doesn't know what the square root of 9 is, and thinks tides are caused by angels.

[bklyncowgirl]

11. It's not just religion. We are all suffering from information overload.

Accepting what appears to be correct information from authorities is a shortcut that allows us to get on with our lives. We only get skeptical when something challenges our well-being--like when your mechanic tells you your car needs a new transmission because the thingamabob is not meshing with the whatsit. With several thousands of your hard earned dollars on the line you might be stimulated to look up thingamabobs and whatsits in order to find out if what he told you was true--or get a second opinion.

Americans have a second problem--the language of science. Alone in the world we have shunned the metric system and with a twisted sense of American exceptionalism, have clung to the British system of weights and measures that the British themselves have long abandoned. Tell the average American that he should be eating more than so many grams of sugar a day and his mind goes blank. Unless you use it daily and most of us don't we have only a vague notion of the metric system.

I'm not a climate scientist but I have a general idea of what global warming is about and prefer to trust the judgment of people who've devoted their lives to understanding it. It doesn't hurt that politicians I agree with say the same thing. If I was someone who, like a certain acquaintance of mine, considers Al Gore an abomination, I might find a way to believe the conspiracy theories which say that the science is skewed.

[sorechasm]

13. All about the thingamabobs and whatsits (and other scientific terms)

Nice analysis bklyncowgirl!

There's a couple of other reasons to stimulate folks to understand the scientific method:
1. Maybe they can build a better mousetrap (take over the crooked mechanic's job)
2. Maybe they wouldn't be so easily manipulated by charlatans (see Trump and Fox as relevant as the funny papers).
3. Live more creative lives and less re-active lives (and the subsequent better citizens and stronger relationships that come from seeing possibilities instead of hurdles).