In 1988 only about 10 percent knew enough about science to understand reports in major newspapers, a figure that grew to 28 percent by 2005

Too bad the percentage of newspaper people capable of writing science reports for newspapers has failed to keep pace. IMHBLO.

/Newspaper in Florida actually had TWO astrology columns plus a "Your lucky Lotto Numbers" columnn, several people on gossip and celebrity news, and no full time science reporter.

We are heading towards a bimodal distribution...

Bigfoot evolved from aliens.

Bigfoot X
Aliens X
Basic Science X

I don't really fit the profile...

Oh, thank God.

God created Bigfoot 10 thousand years ago, but the aliens made God in the big bang.

When I look around, I find this hard to believe.

further: but the aliens made God in the big bang.

Did that big bang occur in Uranus?

Both and increase in scientific understanding and belief in pseudoscientifice theories.

So now people understand what "climate" means and also believe that humans are the source of all global warming?

//yes I did

What about virgin births, walking on water, and angels?

/flame on!

Science is only relevent to the time that it's studied..

/ The science facts that we're true in the 1700's are not the same true science facts today in 2007..as the facts today will be different in the yr. 2200...

/ Forget science...Give me boobies or give me death..

"I think Bigfoot is blurry, that's the problem. It's not the photographer's fault. Bigfoot is blurry. And that's extra scary to me, because there's a large, out-of-focus monster roaming the countryside. Run. He's fuzzy. Get outta here!"
-Mitch Hedberg (RIP)

What about Bigfoot abductions? At least he doesnt give you the anal probe.

...except that evolution isn't science. It's an even bigger scam than anthropogenic global warming.

Every thing I need to know about Science, Tom Cruise taught me.

Can't forget science kidkeno. The science of the 1700s were neccisary to arrive at the science of Today.

mdalli: ...except that evolution isn't science. It's an even bigger scam than anthropogenic global warming.

/ignorance.

Survey of American public's scientific knowledge reveals improved familiarity with basic science...

You'd not know it from any Fark thread that involves science that has any political or religion overlap at all. Usually those end up being 4-5 people who know what they're talking about trying to stem a flood of soundbite science from all directions.

/ I blame Canada.

// I would also be interested to know if there's a correlation between the rise of evangelical megachurches and the decline of "new age" and Fortean beliefs

Can ya smell what the Flame is cookin !!

The article actually says there's been an increase in belief in astrology and alien abduction, not a decline.

In 1988 only about 10 percent knew enough about science to understand reports in major newspapers, a figure that grew to 28 percent by 2005

I would bet serious money that a good proportion of those people who think that they know enough science to understand reports in major newspapers, actually don't.

"There used to be a consensus on global cooling!"
"Evolution is just a theory!"
"Searing the meat keeps the juices in!"

Anna Nicole Smith was killed by the Loch Ness Monster, who also fathered her baby.

We need people like 1. Chavez in Venezuela and 2. leftist EUnuchstanians (el European greens) to remind U.S. that we are different, in a very good way, from them.

EUnuchstanians, who cannot compete with el stupido Amerikkkans, seek to gain power and control the old fashioned way.

EUropeans seek to empower the UN to save the environment.
Golly. Perhaps west Germany should have surrendered to east Germany. Oh sorry they did.

http://tinyurl.com/t4h8e

Free people, smart people, innovative people and many rats will flee to better places. Where is science advanced? Free places.

We need to find a way to target fifth column rats.

With things like the rise in creationist beliefs, I'd be willing to wager that what's going on is people in general are more scientifically knowledgeable, but at the same time a specific minority group (fundamentalists) has become more organized and militant. Fewer people are 'partially-educated', and while most people know more about science, some have come under the influence of fundamentalist beliefs. Meaning there used to be a lot of people who weren't reached out to by either side, but now there's few of them and mostly it's the two sides competing for influence.

So, basically what co-conspirator said. Except that I think you'll find the fundamentalists are far and away the minority here.

Gotta start somewhere I guess. What about vitamin supplaments in the water for southern states?

Didn't the article say the opposite of the headline? And increase in knowledge of basic science but an increase in belief in pseudoscience such as alien abduction and astrology as well?

from TFA:
Nick Allum of the University of Surry in England suggested belief in astrology might be a simple misunderstanding of the question, with people confusing astrology with astronomy.

That still means they're stupid.

2007-02-17 07:17:35 PM skinink

Anna Nicole Smith was killed by the Loch Ness Monster, who also fathered her baby.

Yeah, that big lizard schlong damn near split her in two....

/yep, I went there
//window seat please
///stewardess, a jack-n-coke please

Does this mean Americans are smarter, or American media is dumbing down its science?

Corrent spelling is the tinfoil hats farkers use to keep grammar nazis out of their brainwaves.

picturescrazy

Can't forget science kidkeno. The science of the 1700s were neccisary to arrive at the science of Today.The science facts that we're true in the 1700's are not the same true science facts today in 2007.
...............................................
Not forgetting it. Just saying the science of the 1700's is no longer relevent today. Had there been no scientific discoveries in the 1700 and 1800 hundreds, would we be as advanced as we already are today ?? Would we have landed on the moon or cured diseases today that wiped out half of Europe 200 yrs ago had we not had science advancement back 250 to 300 yrs ago ?? The cause creates necessity. Still no cure for the common cold, still no cure for cancer. I say there is NO disease in the world today that there isn't also a cure for somewhere. Possibly in that sharks fin or the tiny flower in the heart of the Amazon. The cure for all disease is out there somewhere. Just depends I guess when the powers that be allow to discover it..What are discoveries of the 1700's compared to the discoveries over the last 60 yrs..There is no comparison..They we're horse and buggy as we're the space shuttle in relation to how fast we make inroads to new discoveries..

Creationists remind of the folks back in Galileo's day, who could not bear the thought that the earth orbited the sun.

When confronted with the data from Kepler and Copernicus, they came up with extremely complicated patterns of motion for all of the planets and stars in order for them to be orbiting the earth.

Of course, they arrested/banished/executed anybody who didn't buy their crazy explanations. I expect these folks would do the same if they had the chance.

kidkeno

Science is only relevent to the time that it's studied..

/ The science facts that we're true in the 1700's are not the same true science facts today in 2007..as the facts today will be different in the yr. 2200...

*Scratches head* My sarcasm metre is giving inconsistent reading on this. Can anyone help me out?

Xaxor: And we all know which parts are headed the wrong way.

Are you implying that rural 'murrica is declining in terms of math and science comprehension?

If so, I can assure you that this implication is only valid when applied to people over the age of eighteen, living in Jesusland (like me), because we all should know that education systems prove themselves to be most farked up in urban areas. Most midwestern states are marginally competitive, though I can only assume that coastal (including the great lakes area) suburbs house the greatest number of well-educated, good parents. Since the landlocked midwest has has only a spotty industrial/corporate history, it follows that uneducated adults will be found at a reasonably higher rate there, than in the aforementioned suburbs.

Furthermore, I propose that the massive, urban societies of the United States actually house a disproportionately large number of uneducated, adults who wouldn't know poise if it bit them square in the nuts. (Or Boobies!)

I would segue into my spiel comparing abortion to purging of chronically homeless people, but I don't want to come of as a troll!

In 1988 only about 10 percent knew enough about science to understand reports in major newspapers, a figure that grew to 28 percent by 2005

So which changed - the people or the newspapers?

/know which way I'd bet

a figure that grew to 28 percent by 2005

Well, I guess my faith in Americans just dwindled a whole lot.

This easily explains why so many people go "MANBEARPIG LOL!" at anything global warming related -- Christ, 28 people understand basic science, not to mention the extremely complex matters behind climate change.

This explains a lot.

mdalli: ...except that evolution isn't science. It's an even bigger scam than anthropogenic global warming.

Says.....who? You?

/waiting for thousands upon thousands of scientists to agree upon your naiveite

I think the comment on people confusing Astrology with Astronomy is interesting. Perhaps a similiar phenomenon can occur with evolution. Evolution has acquired a negative connotation. However, what if instead you mentioned some of the components of evolution without referring to the overall process.

How about, "Heredity"? Do many people argue that doesn't happen? "Oh, he has his father's eyes." Yeah, didn't think so.

How about "The strongest survive"? Not really close enough to "Survival of the fittest," but at least in the same vein.

How about, "Birth defects," aka mutation? Most people know someone with one.

How about, "Selective breeding"? People usually are aware that Bulldogs were bred by humans to do something with Bulls. (Fight them? Love them? I forget)

Ummm, maybe "Relatives," or "Family Tree"? Does that come close enough to describing genetic drift? Perhaps not.

I'm outta ideas. Come up with some more euphimisms if you want to communicate with people who discard evolution just because it's "Evolution."

Science is only relevent to the time that it's studied..

/ The science facts that we're true in the 1700's are not the same true science facts today in 2007..as the facts today will be different in the yr. 2200...

Pure nonsense. Anything that was true in 1700 is still true today and will be true in 2200. However, science rarely if ever deals with truth, which is an entirely philosophical issue. Science deals with predicting observables. Science in 1700 was actually damn good at predicting observables, as is science today, and science in 2200. Granted the models will change, but the important parts of science (critical thinking and the scientific process) have been the same for a long time now, and will probably remain the same.

but why force people to learn when it has no real application to their daily lives?

Nobody is forced to learn anything beyond basic reading and arithmetic really. However, if you actually want high school and especially college degrees, you are expected to be educated. Educated people are capable of reading literature and knowing very very basic science. If you dont want to learn this stuff, thats fine, but then dont turn around and expect degrees which say you are.

Additionally, thinking about science and literature is more important than memorizing specific facts or reading a book with no thought. The type of critical thinking in these areas is key to success in many fields, even if you dont deal directly with the book/science.

contributing to the listing of "female" as a leading negative factor in science literacy

lol

"All psychologists who have studied the intelligence of women... recognize that they represent the most inferior form of human evolution and that they are close to children and savages than to adult, civilized man. They excel in fickleness, inconstancy, absence of thought and logic, and incapacity to reason.

Without doubt there exist some distinguished women, very superior to the average man, but they are as exceptional as the birth of any monstrosity, as for example, of a gorilla with two heads; consequently, we may neglect them entirely."

~Gustav LeBon, colleague of Paul Pierre Broca (1879)

kidkeno: / The science facts that we're true in the 1700's are not the same true science facts today in 2007

The earth now revolves around the moon?

Where's Bevets?

kidkeno:
/ The science facts that we're true in the 1700's are not the same true science facts today in 2007.

You're saying that the volt, measuring temperature in Celsius, lightening as an electrical discharge, hot-air ballooning, the chemical battery, the inverse square model of gravity, light waves, gas pressure, and finite speed of light are not factual any longer?

Sweet!

qqqq: We need to find a way to target fifth column rats.

Years from now, qqqq will fondly remember when he ate all the mushrooms and posted on Fark.

TheOther,

Ooooh, so that's what it was. I thought I was just being dense.