News:

Unnecessarily argumentative

Main Menu

Americans more science-literate than Japanese, Europeans

Started by Kestrel, February 24, 2007, 05:46:16 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Kestrel

I found this to be an interesting read.

EXCERPT;

...So why is David Ewing Duncan, a capable freelancer journalist with a record of solid reporting, hopping mad about this outcome over at MIT's Tech Review?

Well, to start with, apparently none of these countries, the world's economic powerhouses, are all that science literate to begin with. 28 percent literacy means that 72 percent of Americans aren't literate enough to understand the average science story in a newspaper. But according to Duncan, it gets worse:...


SOURCE
The thing that I call living is just being satisfied, with knowing I've got no one left to blame. - Gordon Lightfoot

MrE2Me

#1
Interesting indeed, but I disagree with the author's last point.  I do think ignorance - particularly about science - has a lot to do with the success of religion here.  Or maybe "poor education" is a better way to put it.  Kids just aren't being taught this stuff.
[size=92]I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. - Stephen Roberts[/size]

Squid

#2
I read an article not long ago about many of the developed nation's knowledge of science, especially biology and evolution.  As I noted on my board when I posted this, a picture is worth a thousand words (this graph is in relation to acceptance of evolution):



QuoteThe study found that over the past 20 years:
The percentage of U.S. adults who accept evolution declined from 45 to 40 percent.
The percentage overtly rejecting evolution declined from 48 to 39 percent, however.
And the percentage of adults who were unsure increased, from 7 to 21 percent.

donkeyhoty

#3
Anyone seen the movie Idiocracy?
"Feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."  - Pat Robertson

MrE2Me

#4
Yup...soon to be remade as a documentary, I fear.  :(
[size=92]I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. - Stephen Roberts[/size]

MysticalChicken

#5
I watched Idiocracy last night on HBO On Demand.  While I laughed a few times, it just wasn't all that funny to me--more frightening, rather.  I expected more from Mike Judge.  I don't know, maybe I missed a bunch of subtle aspects of it.  I might wait a week or two and watch it again.

"Down in the hall, embedded in walls, hear them screaming.  Stashed in a bar, a brain in a jar, no one sees them.  Sucking them blind and draining their minds, hear them screaming.  Stas

rlrose328

#6
MysticalChicken, I felt the same way... I'd laugh then realize that we're closer to that than not, and I'd get all depressed and bummed.  Frightened, yes.  The first part, with the "smart" couple putting off having a child until they can be responsible until the guy passes away of old age vs. the "trailer trash" guy with multiple partners and dumber than dirt kids procreating all over the place, world be damned... THAT sets the negative tone for me right off because it's so true!  I know it' supposed to be funny... but it's just not.  Religious folk and 12 kids is the norm around these parts and it's so darned sad.
**Kerri**
The Rogue Atheist Scrapbooker
Come visit me on Facebook!


pip

#7
QuoteMysticalChicken, I felt the same way... I'd laugh then realize that we're closer to that than not, and I'd get all depressed and bummed. Frightened, yes. The first part, with the "smart" couple putting off having a child until they can be responsible until the guy passes away of old age vs. the "trailer trash" guy with multiple partners and dumber than dirt kids procreating all over the place, world be damned... THAT sets the negative tone for me right off because it's so true! I know it' supposed to be funny... but it's just not. Religious folk and 12 kids is the norm around these parts and it's so darned sad.

So, let's assume that Idiocracy is correct and that the future will be populated by dumb fundamentalists. According to Darwinism, wouldn't this be an affirmation of the value of religion?

rlrose328

#8
Quote from: "pip"So, let's assume that Idiocracy is correct and that the future will be populated by dumb fundamentalists. According to Darwinism, wouldn't this be an affirmation of the value of religion?

An affirmation of the idiocy of religion, maybe... not the value.  Unless we're saying that religion has no more value than opaque white extra-large panty-hose on a blue-light special.  In that case, I agree. :roll:
**Kerri**
The Rogue Atheist Scrapbooker
Come visit me on Facebook!


pip

#9
QuoteAn affirmation of the idiocy of religion, maybe... not the value. Unless we're saying that religion has no more value than opaque white extra-large panty-hose on a blue-light special. In that case, I agree.

The ultimate measure of worth is the ability to survive. If religious rednecks inherit the earth, then it will be because by some criterion of natural selection they deserve to do so. If this is due even in part to their religiosity, then the value of religion is undeniable.

SteveS

#10
Quote from: "pip"According to Darwinism, wouldn't this be an affirmation of the value of religion?
Could you please define "Darwinism" for us?  It is not a term most of us use.

If you're asking if there is a value of religion in a sort of evolutionary sense, then it is entirely possible, maybe even probable, that there is a survival advantage inherent to religious belief.  That is to say, a population of religious followers may well be able to survive better than a population of non-religious followers.  Especially if the religious followers find their god instructing them to stamp out and kill all the people of differing opinion.  Then the only survivors would be the religiously minded.

Or, it may inspire altruistic behavior that is beneficial to the group.  If you don't believe you're really going to die when you die, you may be more likely to sacrifice yourself (i.e. 9/11 terrorists).  It is possible that altruistic sacrifices could benefit the group at large.

Or course, in opposition to these ideas, we have some observations from the modern world.  Religious conflict drives war and instability in many parts of the world.  With the threats of environmental change or asteroid collisions destroying all human life it would seem like a coordinated response to these threats may be the best option for survival --- how is religion assisting with this?

I'd say that any evolutionary advantage to religious belief is too sketchy an idea to make a conclusion about one way or the other.  But that's not the really important part.  The really important part is that NONE of this discussion bears any fruit as to the truth of the religious belief.  Even if religious belief were shown to be beneficial to group survival it would not address whether or not the religious beliefs are actually true.

A follow on to this thought is that it would not be the belief, per se, that is the beneficial part but rather the behavior that follows from holding the belief.  If a person can isolate the beneficial behavior from the belief --- what is the difference?  In other words, a non-religious population could acquire all the benefits without the belief, right?  And, wouldn't this be a position of better understanding?

rlrose328

#11
Quote from: "pip"
QuoteAn affirmation of the idiocy of religion, maybe... not the value. Unless we're saying that religion has no more value than opaque white extra-large panty-hose on a blue-light special. In that case, I agree.

The ultimate measure of worth is the ability to survive. If religious rednecks inherit the earth, then it will be because by some criterion of natural selection they deserve to do so. If this is due even in part to their religiosity, then the value of religion is undeniable.

Again, I disagree... you're being WAY too simplistic in your reasoning.  If the non-believers are being responsible and not over-procreating, while they red-neck believers are cross-breeding and over-populating because of their religious beliefs, that can hardly be called "natural selection."  Especially if they are breeding humans that will not be educated and continue to believe in invisible sky-protectors.  While there are more of "them" than of "us," the "us" are truly evolving while the "them" are merely clones of each other.

The belief that "a million _________ can't be wrong" is a big fallacy.  A million people CAN be wrong... it just takes someone to have enough courage to tell them.  A million milk drinkers are wrong to someone with an allergy to lactose.  A million murderers are definitely wrong to the remainder of humanity.  So just because there are more believers than non-believers doesn't make them the right ones or the more moral ones or the ones with the more valuable belief system.
**Kerri**
The Rogue Atheist Scrapbooker
Come visit me on Facebook!


rlrose328

#12
Quote from: "SteveS"I'd say that any evolutionary advantage to religious belief is too sketchy an idea to make a conclusion about one way or the other.  But that's not the really important part.  The really important part is that NONE of this discussion bears any fruit as to the truth of the religious belief.  Even if religious belief were shown to be beneficial to group survival it would not address whether or not the religious beliefs are actually true.

Yeah, what STEVE said.  :o
**Kerri**
The Rogue Atheist Scrapbooker
Come visit me on Facebook!


pip

#13
QuoteCould you please define "Darwinism" for us? It is not a term most of us use.

From Wikipedia:

QuoteDarwinism is a term for the underlying theory in those ideas of Charles Darwin concerning evolution and natural selection. Discussions of Darwinism usually focus on evolution by natural selection, but sometimes Darwinism is taken to mean evolution more broadly, or other ideas not directly associated with the work of Darwin.

I'll use the definition "evolution by natural selection."

QuoteI'd say that any evolutionary advantage to religious belief is too sketchy an idea to make a conclusion about one way or the other. But that's not the really important part. The really important part is that NONE of this discussion bears any fruit as to the truth of the religious belief. Even if religious belief were shown to be beneficial to group survival it would not address whether or not the religious beliefs are actually true.

The fact that religion is so prevalent in human culture despite the obvious disadvantages seems to me like a pretty powerful argument in favor of the "evolutionary advantage to religious belief."

I'm ignoring the question of truth for the sake of simplicity. Determining whether something is valuable according to the narrow criteria of "evolution by natural selection" seems to me to be far easier than determining whether it's true.

You seem to consider truthfulness of primary importance while almost dismissing usefulness. Is that correct? If so, why?

Mister Joy

#14
To examine your argument on similarly simple terms, if you consider the overall development of the human species, religion has become gradually less of a feature in our lives, not more. It can also be seen in the structure of our legal systems and so on; basing themselves less on scripture and more on independently devised ethics (for example, we no longer hang homosexuals, atheists are far more accepted now than they were fifty years ago and so on). This would suggest that its value/purpose, whatever that may have been, has become or is becoming redundant. I think of religion as a psychological appendix. Unsurprisingly, this trend is more the case since Newton & the birth of modern scientific thinking (baring in mind that archaic 'science' was simply superstitious speculation and involved studying werewolf hunting methods and such more than anything else).

I don't know whether or not the world is becoming more stupid (though I imagine that the overall trend would suggest not) but more religious? I very much doubt that.