There is some good news on the battle against scientific illiteracy: Americans know more about basic science today than they did two decades ago. Perversely, this increasing knowledge is tempered by a growth in the belief in pseudoscience such as astrology and visits by extraterrestrial aliens.
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, according to Jon Miller, a Michigan State University professor. He presented his findings at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Curiously, most horoscope readers are women, which contributes to being female as the leading negative factor in science literacy. Women also took fewer science vcourses in college.
But some of this confusion might be semantic: In one European study, approximately 25 percent of people said they thought astrology was very scientific. But that number fell to about 7 percent when the question was rephrased to horoscopes.
Cited story.
- Log in to post comments
Isn't it even sadder that about 20% of people are probably confusing astrology with astronomy?
A growth in belief in pseudoscience compared to 1987? That's scary, based on what I remember of 1987.
I think that trend on women taking fewer science classes is on the down end, at least I hope it is. Not that my anecdotes are worth much, but my biology courses (even in upper division) consistently have a majority of female students. Chem classes I've taken have similarly had many female students, if not more than 50%.
I don't see what reading horoscopes have to do with scientific illiteracy. Why horoscopes and not reading Cosmo, watching reality tv, or reading romance novels? Most men don't read Cosmo or romance novels either. Why not argue that reading porn increases scientific knowledge, since that's something men are more likely to do? Women don't read horoscopes for scientific knowledge. Blaming women's nonscientific interests for their lack of scientific literacy doesn't make much sense to me.
In one European study, approximately 25 percent of people said they thought astrology was very scientific. But that number fell to about 7 percent when the question was rephrased to horoscopes.
Quite a lot of math is involved in putting together an astrology chart, which is likely why people think of it as scientific. During a consultation a lot of time is spent discussing planetary motion, and so on. Unlike a horoscope, which can be anything the astrologer thinks of to put in the paper. Even astrology followers know there's a difference between astrology and astronomy. Astrology is the study of what they call "qualitative time" (how one moment is different from the next). It reminds me much more of the pseudoscience involved in psychotherapy (in fact many astrologers call a chart a map of the psyche, and some therapists are also astrologers) than the pseudoscience of say, tarot readings.