'Flunking Basic Science?'

The results of these quizzes always leave me uneasy. "Illiteracy" is not it. I'm not sure they show anything.

I wouldn't expect people to know the freshwater question, but what is important is what they tell you when they reveal the answer: < 1% is available for drinking and agriculture.

There is also a difference between literacy and possessing scientific thinking skills. Of course, even the influence of fundamental religious groups should not castrate people's knowledge of the Earth revolving around the sun once per yer; that number is embarrassing.

Why would most adults today have learned about sustainability during their schooling? I take it as heartening that most adults say they're "not at all knowledgeable" about sustainability because it shows that they're aware of their shortcomings and may actually seek to rectify it.

Honestly, the three questions asked were rather pointless. I'm not sure this poll tells us anything at all ... other than it was a dumb poll.

Maybe the problem is that these quizzes makes news every time.

I think your questions are good ones. I'm not sure what this poll reveals specifically. It's a typical quickie bite sized media piece, intended to grab attention and then move on to something else grabby. But the question of American education in general and education in science is an important one. But that issue needs to be addressed within the broader context of education funding.

Does the blatant sexism of the posted cartoon provide a clue to these trick questions?

I'd say No, asking specific factual questions doesn't test "scientific illiteracy" -- just as I'd say that asking "what is a gerund" is NOT a good test of English literacy.

I think "scientific literacy" means the ability to understand the scientific method (generate testable hypotheses, devise experiments or seek evidence that will confirm or deny a hypothesis, etc) and the ability to use critical thinking skills to judge "scientific" claims.

It is easier to test knowledge of facts, but I don't think it would be terribly hard to devise a test of real scientific literacy. I predict the results would be even more depressing than the fact-based quiz, though...

Pierce wrote:

Does the blatant sexism of the posted cartoon provide a clue to these trick questions?

As much as I'm sensitive to this issue, I don't think it's sexist.

This cartoon, from the Atlas of Science Literacy, Volume 2, published by Project 2061, the science-education reform initiative of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, illustrates the challenges that teachers face as they try to help students achieve science literacy. The cartoon was created by the late Andrew (Chick) Ahlgren (1936-2006), who brought map making and cartoons like this one to Project 2061, and helped to change thinking about science learning and teaching. Atlas 2 and its companion volume were jointly released by AAAS and the National Science Teachers Association to provide teachers with a grade-by-grade guide to science learning from kindergarten through 12th grade.

So I took the quiz. Got 5/6 right. I missed the fresh water question. I knew it was a low percentage, but I didn't know it was down at 3%. You learn something new every day.

The water question is actually one of the best questions on the list. It tests at some level how skilled people are at estimation which is an important ability if people want to have any understanding of science or surrounding skills. If you don't know the number but you know what a globe looks like you can get close to the correct number (Just naive thinking about the globe would probably get you between about 60 and 85 percent or so).

Moreover, we can't expect people to apply the scientific method or critical thinking if they don't have the basic facts underlying how much of the universe is set up. I would however be very curious as to how could a proxy these sorts of questions are for questions more directly about the scientific method and related issues.

The question is about "scientific temper" and not about "literacy" per se. The question is about science as a way of thinking and a way for rational investigation of the world, not about knowing scientific facts per se. The problem with this country is that many people don't have an understanding of scientific temper as a valuable way to live their lives. They "believe" in the fruits of science, but not in science itself.

Let me ask you a simple question. Man is on boat with 500 pounds of rock with him in a very large swimming pool. He tosses the rocks off the boat into the water. Would the level of water in the pool
A. Rise
B. Fall
C. Remain the same

Does this problem test the "scientific literacy" of us educated adults?

What really depresses me is not that adults are unable to answer these questions but that more than 40% of them don't believe in evolution. To me that is a much bigger and more pernicious and concerning evidence of scientific illiteracy. That is what we should be spending a lot of time on.

What the conclusions about this survey really reveal is how full of themselves "scientists" have become.

I take comfort in the ancient observation that following close on the heels of hubris is nemesis.

I think the only thing those survey's really show is how well a person can recall the things he learned x amount of years ago.

I've learned a ton of things a long time ago, that I can't recall off of the top of my head. But I can certainly google it if I need to recall it.

Scientific Reasoning will prove itself or not as we try to figure out how to survive the twin impending crises of water scarcity and climate disruption.

That that survive will understand evolution.

Jason R, these are basic facts about the set-up of the universe around us. If people can't recall them then it demonstrates a deep lack of caring about the world around them. Moreover, most of these questions are questions where one can easily noodle out the answer even if you don't know it. I already mentioned how to do this with the water question but let's look at some of the others:

*how long it takes for the Earth to revolve around the Sun.

Well, let's think. The apparent rotation of the sun around the earth (if you consider the Earth fixed) is 24 hours. But that's because the Earth is rotating around its own axis. So what other times to do I know about? Hmm, months, don't those have something vaguely to do with the lunar cycle. Oh right, the moon goes through its phases in a slightly under 30 day period. Ok, that's because of the moon's rotation around the Earth. That's not what we're looking for. Ok, what's the next unit of time I know? A year. What does a year represent? It represents going through all four seasons. What causes seasons? Ah. Now we've got it.

*did humans live the same time as dinosaurs?

Again, the knowledge level needed is minimal. Humans are a few million years old. Dinosaurs are ten of millions of years old. So that's a nope. And to double check, I vaguely remember cave paintings and such of ancient humans hunting mammoths. I don't remember anything about them hunting dinosaurs.

Moreover, the study in question directly dealt with questions that are necessary for having minimal understanding of serious policy issues like the percentage of earth's water that is fresh water.

Dismissing these sort of basic facts about the world around you as stuff you've simply forgot is as appalling as if an US citizen can't remember which President was around for the Civil War. And the ability to function as an educated adult taking part in the democratic process is about as hampered.

yeah the fresh water question is stupid. I knew it was low, and thought it was lower than 3%

The results of these quizzes always leave me uneasy. "Illiteracy" is not it. I'm not sure they show anything.

They show ignorance. Lack of knowledge.

The level of the questions is clearly different. Not knowing the percentage of freshwater on the planet's surface is infinitely more excusable than not knowing that humans and dinosaurs did not cohabit. What percentage of your body by weight is blood by the way? Random questions meander meaninglessly.

As a former English major and a woman, I'm proud to say I got 6/6 questions right! It was pretty basic stuff; it's the sort of thing we should know by about 5th grade.

Lamentably, I can't find state-by-state distributions for such literacy. However, with only 1000 respondents, the breakdown for the current sample would be meaningless.

The funny detail about these quizzes is that the "right" answers are slightly wrong. I.e. the earth needs one year, 20 Minutes and 24 seconds to go around the sun (I had to look up the exact value and just knew that "one year" is wrong), and humans did (and do) walk with dinosaurs for the simple reason that dinosaurs (some theropodes) are still around. The first problem is harmless ("one year" is the closest of the given choices), the second is not (IMHO).

For me, the volume of an icicle is the UPPER has his volume in water. If the glacier melts: the level of the sea GOES DOWN (and not the opposite!).
It is frightening to read the opposite every day in the press.
The similar for " Half as cold "

http://scienceblogs.com/builtonfacts/2009/02/half_as_cold.php

@humorix:
The behavior of the sea level depends on more factors. If the ice sits on the ground (near the coast) and melts, the sea level goes up. Melting of floating ice of the same composition as the water does not cause a change in the sea level. It also goes up if freshwater ice floating on saltwater melts (generally: if the molten liquid has a lower density than the sea water).

Ask them a question where they have to use logic to solve a problem. 10% will get it right. Everything about our culture pushes people away from science.

@ Ralf Muschall

As the party submerged by an iceberg is more spacious than the emergent party, if the glacier melts the holes of air fill with water. Therefore: level goes down.
On the contrary, when I read that the level of the sea could go up to 70 metres!!!
it is stupidity come from GIEC very there

@humorix
A floating iceberg (made of the same water as it floats in) displaces as much water as it weighs, thus after melting it exactly fills the hole which his submerged part made into the water (no matter how much air and intermolecular spaces are inside the iceberg - the volume consumed by these corresponds exactly to the part sticking out of the sea). The situation changes if there are different sort of water (imagine the extreme case of an iceberg floating on mercury, making almost no dent but leaving a nonzero film of water after melting, thus raising the level).