Why is public understanding of science so poor?

Question

There seem to be a large number of people asking politically motivated questions about science on here who don't appear to have an adequate education to even phrase the question, let alone comprehend the answer.

Why do they think science is about proving theories, when it is all about disproving hypotheses?

Why do they think that evidence which cannot yet be explained by a theory invalidates all the evidence that is explained by it?

Why do they think that evidence that cannot yet be explained by a theory will never be explained by a more refined version of the same theory?

Why do they think that the process of refining theories to better fit the evidence somehow invalidates the whole sequence of improving theories?

Why do they think that widespread agreement within a field is evidence of a conspiracy, rather than evidence of solid scientific investigation and peer review?

And why are they using Yahoo Answers to score dubious political points off a disinterested audience?

Please note that I did not specify American public. Asking why some Americans seem to think nothing beyond their borders is relevant to their lives (unless they are killing them by the hundreds of thousands and mourning only those thousand or so who die who are also American) is a separate question I may well ask in the future.

Sorry to be blunt, but that kind of master race arrogance is why most of the rest of the world hates America. That and George W 'the moron' Bush.

Answer 1

I think most people don't understand science. This may be because of the way it is taught. Most of us are taught the "what" in science: "This is an animal. It is classified here. Memorize this."

Luckily, our new HS science teacher also teaches the "why and how" of science. "This is a DNA structure. It codes for this. This is how it is transcribed, and this is why this protein is important in the cell. Now lets do a lab using amylase producing cells on starch-containing agar so you can see and understand this better. Also, why don't you make a model explaining how this works."

I think that once a larger percentage of the population understands how science works, how hypothesis become theories and why things are done the way they are, that science in general could take some large steps forward. Without this understanding, we will continue to have opposition to everything.

I'm not saying that every person must believe in evolution, just learn about it and how it works. The same goes for stem cell research and cloning. I'm not saying that that is a good thing, but I think a person needs to know and understand the subject BEFORE they voice an opinion against it.

Edit: Maybe not all schools do a bad job of teaching science, though I think there can always be improvement on teaching the subject. Students graduating this year from my high school must have at least two years of science above introductory science (which at our school is a large exploration of the Scientific Method and basic principals of science). Almost every lesson is accompanied by a lab. This year's freshman class will be required to have four years of science by graduation. I think that this will be beneficial to the students, though they do a great deal of complaining about the new rule. When I graduate this year, I will have taken 6 years of science and gotten a year's experience as a lab technician.

Answer 2

Hey there high-speed, big talk for somebody trying to complain about other people being political. In order to prove or disprove a hypothesis, you must interpret data. When it is something easy like "Water boils at 100 degrees C", then you look at the thermometer and read it, a properly calibrated thermometer will read 100 degrees in boiling water at STP, hypothesis becomes theory, and further testing becomes law. When it comes to proving something like "human induced global warming", then it is much more complicated than looking at a thermometer.

Al Gore, a world renowned atmospheric and weather scientist, might say that "look, climate is changing and CO2 is increasing due to human activity". He will show some data that he has interpreted as such. Another scientist might look at the same data and say "if you look closely, the temperature rise actually precedes the rising CO2 levels." Or, the other scientist might also point out that "solar activity has been increasing in correlation to global warming". In this case, you have 2 scientists looking at the same data. Once comes to one conclusion, one comes to another. One scientist looks at all of the data, the other conveniently ignors some. What is the difference? Interpretation. Thats right, kids! When it comes to complicated scientific hypotheses, HUMAN interpretation is involved, and as such, the possibility of human error is included. The opportunity for hoaxes, conspiracies, or simple incompetence is introduced.

Back to the question. If a theory doesn't explain all of the associated evidence, then the theory is wrong. Perhaps it is wrong entirely, or only wrong in scope, but it is still flawed. Theories must work 100% or the time, or they should not make it past the hypothesis stage.

True indeed, if a theory doesn't explain the evidence at first, then after refinement, it may explain the evidence. But publishing the untested hypothesis as a true theory instead of a faulty hypothesis is academic dishonesty. And constantly changing a "theory" is not improving a theory, it should be constantly changing a hypothesis, and finding evidence later that disproves a theory usually means it is time to go back to the drawing board, not time to tweak until it looks right.

Widespread agreement is seldom seen in science or in humanity at large. But sometimes there is widespread agreement. Also there are times that widespread agreement is reported and dissenters are ignored (especially when reported by the media, which is filled with "scientific experts".

One thing we can count on is constant disagreement in this world and on these types of issues. We can also count on politics, science, and religion being used as tools right in the middle of this debate, and no side has historically been without error.

So the debate continues...

Answer 3

Very interesting and thought provoking question. Thank you.

Science is not everybody's subject - one must be interested in it. It is a vast subject with a variety of different theories, which are complicated for a common person.

Everybody is not made the same. Some like science and some like art or some other subject. Hence, you cannot expect everybody to understand science. People are happy with the knowledge that the earth goes around and life goes on, without bothering to know how that happens.

I agree with some of the answers that science is not taught properly in school with the result, not many students take interest in this subject and study it only to pass the exams.

Answer 4

Good question. I like to stick to solid mathematics whenever I answer a question, but sometimes that does not help, for example, the terrorists who brought down the Twin Towers had some kind of an Anti-gravity device, or manipulated gravity to allow the Twin Towers and Building 7 to fall faster than the acceleration due to gravity in a free-fall. It's amazing to me that people fall for this non-scientific mode of thought and act on pure emotion.
Back on subject: America is ranked near the bottom for mathematics and science worldwide. It's amazing to me how the rest of the world send their best and brightest students to America to get the best possible education, but America can't educate its own students in mathematics and science education. Now, the current administration wishes to introduce Intelligent Design and do away with the Theory of Evolution, even though the large chemical and agricultural giants are using biotechnology methods in the very corn fields in Kansas, for example, using evolution to modify food products.

I also think that the large mega-corporations that own the major television networks are responsible for a lot of the dumbing-down that is happening as we speak in America.
Good night and Good Luck.

Answer 5

The questions such as you raise are precisely why I've decided to educate my kids at home. I can foster a love for science in the first place, which is an important foundation for getting them to THINK outside the box. And wow are they doing it.

The way that science is taught in school (public or private but especially public)... well let's just say that when I was in school, I used to be asleep before I even sat down when it was time for science class. GEEZ were those teachers boring. And really dumbed down.

By the way, widespread agreement does not necessarily equal correctness. Remember the propaganda in Nazi Germany? Widespread agreement WAS conspiracy so must be careful...

Answer 6

Stirring the pot again, sweetheart? I love this question! Actually, I did learn about ID in a high school science class, it's not exactly a hot news flash as I was in high school like a hundred years ago. I think we spent maybe one day on it. I found it fascinating at the time and I still do. And I am far from being a fundamentalist. As far as a public school science class, I don't see anything wrong with teaching different "theories" and "hypothesis" as long as that is what they are taught, that they ARE theories and hypotheses. I believe it helps us to learn open mindedness(shocking, I know), something that is seriously lacking in our society. Some of this stuff needs to be learned at home, too, as I have had the privilege of having numerous discussions about Evolution and ID with my son, who could probably teach the class. imho

Answer 7

Real science is under taught in school systems and students rarely encounter the true scientific process.

Here is why: of all the subjects in schools science is the most expensive to teach. Even computers is cheaper to teach!

The materials needed to teach science the way it should be taught are: 1) expensive and consumed, and 2) dangerous (law suits, anyone??).

Therefore, the teaching of science is really just a basic perusal of theory without any real interaction.

Oddly enough, Art is in the same boat. The materials are expensive, consumed and some are dangerous.

Answer 8

I don't believe I had good teachers in science that gave me a solid background in scientific principles. I was very good in every other subject and struggled with science. I did this through middle school, high school and then again in college.

I am not one who blames teachers for everything but I had a good grasp of every other subject. I may have run into a few excellent teachers in later years, but I think that is a bit too late if one does not have the basics.

This of course is my opinion of why I do not have a good grasp of science. I am sure it is not everyone's experience and I certainly am not criticizing hard working teachers.

As an added comment, perhaps it is the school curriculum in the sciences rather than the teachers themselves.

Answer 9

Because Science has not been revered in the current administration in the US. In fact, it has been actively denegrated in favor of faith based programs.

The Catholic Church is far more compatible with Science than the fundamentalist / Evangelical Christian movement in the United States.

IMO The world has become sufficiently complicated to the layman that in absence of any organized, government sponsored promotion of scientific methods, or any prevailing atmosphere of scientific precedence that people are easily ensnared by simplistic answers offered by non-reasoning belief systems. Yes, there will be a quiz ;D

Specific Answers:
1. I doubt many people understand what theories really are, how they are formed, refined, verified, and how rigorous the process is
2. See #1, a lack of understanding of the scientific method
3..4 See #1
5. Because it's a social forum

Answer 10

Interesting question, and you have some interesting responses. I have to agree that too much emphasis is placed on 'rote' learning, rather than on understanding why something is happening.
Another part of the problem is that many people are becoming less and less inclined to do their own thinking. Witness the 'Entertainment Tonight' and 'National Enquirerer; phenomenon. Bits of gossip and inuendo, chopped into 30 second bites, because the audience loses interest after 30 seconds and wants to move on to something else.
Why are they using Yahoo Answers? Perhaps because it is a medium so readily accessible, and so totally uncritical of content.