Americans' Evolution Knowledge Isn't That Bad, If You Ask About Elephants (sciencemag.org) 385
sciencehabit writes: In 2014, a poll showed that just 49% of Americans agreed with the statement: "Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals." But it's difficult to tell whether those numbers measure ignorance about science, because belief in human evolution is closely tied to religious belief, especially in the United States. Yesterday, researchers at the annual meeting of AAAS, previewed data from a recent poll showing that when the word "human" is replaced with "elephant" in the evolution question, 75% of Americans agree — about 25 percentage points higher than before. Plus, the new elephant question does a better job of predicting general science knowledge than the human question, especially among those who say they don't believe in evolution. So it seems that America's dismal performance on past evolution polls can be blamed at least partially on this disbelief, rather than a lack of knowledge.
Still bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Elephants might be too "exotic", I think that number would probably be higher if they used dogs instead.
Re: (Score:3)
Other branches of Christianity that do not rely on a God that does what he is told to do are not threatened by talk of evolution.
If talk of reality is a danger to your God then it is indeed a puny God.
Re:Still bad (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
And that shows that by the very simple process of letting those with a favorible trait live and terminating those with unfavorible traits you can create a radically different animal in a very small time span. Now Imagine what you could do if you had a 4 billions years.
Re:Still bad (Score:5, Interesting)
If you want to say it's shockingly bad, first establish what a proper percentage should be. It is apparently a similar result to other basic science questions in which Americans may out-perform other countries:
To the question "Does the Earth go around the Sun, or does the Sun go around the Earth," 26 percent of those surveyed [Americans] answered incorrectly. . . . Only 66 percent of people in a 2005 European Union poll answered the basic astronomy question correctly. However, both China and the EU fared significantly better (66 percent and 70 percent, respectively) on the question about human evolution.
-- NPR [npr.org]
What result should we expect when surveying a large population of non-STEM individuals who, received their science education (if any) 40 years ago under different standards and haven't looked back since, may not ever have achieved high school diploma, may not have the reasoning skills to understand abstract scientific theories, or may just be joshing with the pollster? What result are we striving for? And, most importantly, how will achieving that result affect our scientific output?
I am open to the idea that this represents a significant problem, but I have a suspicion that it is really not as big of an issue as people who live-and-breath science like to perceive. Some hard data on the externalities would be nice.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to say it's shockingly bad, first establish what a proper percentage should be
The proper percentage should be at least 99%, but I'll settle for 99% among members of the government, and 90% for the public.
Re: (Score:3)
Around here, the correct answer is usually "Grey".
Re:Still bad (Score:5, Insightful)
What result are we striving for? And, most importantly, how will achieving that result affect our scientific output?
It's not just about scientific output; it's also about the ability to act usefully based on the science.
As an obvious example, far too many decisions in government get their public support from rhetoric, short term greed, or fear. Far too few get supported by the public based on evidence and critical thinking. This can and does lead to objectively harmful actions becoming official policy.
The chilling part of the problem is that it's also a vicious circle. When few in power even understand basic STEM issues themselves, and government is responsible for areas like education and a lot of large-scale funding, you risk a creeping decline in education and awareness that in turn makes other problems worse.
This seems to be a particularly unfortunate situation in the US today, because its sheer scale and willingness to deploy its military power mean it's unrealistic for the rest of the world to challenge it effectively on issues like, say, wasteful use of natural resources or excessive use of antibiotics, where the consequences can go far beyond the national borders even if the accountability does not.
Re: (Score:3)
The reason there's a huge change in numbers between the elephant evolution question and the human evolution question is because weirdo Protestant Christians (in the US anyway) are told that humans are not animals, but are somehow special, so when they're asked about evolution, of course they answer that humans have not evolved.
Elephants are animals however, so the mental gy
Incompetent Evolutionary Teaching (Score:3)
40 years? You're trying to blame your parents, or your high school teachers, or what?
First of all, we've had a reasonable amount of wide evolutionary belief since the 1870s, Mendel's work was rediscovered around 1900, the Scopes Monkey Trial was in 1925 (because evolution was sufficiently widely known to be a threat to some people's social position), DNA in the 1950s.
The real problem has been how badly many people were taught about it. Not only was there the whole Social Darwinism thing and the Eugenics
Religion is poison (Score:5, Insightful)
Religion is poison for the mind, it is arsenic, meth, cocaine and cyanide of the mind, it is the murderer of intelligence, destroyer of sound logic and of critical thought.
Of-course people are free to believe whatever they want to believe, but I think it is fair to treat all religions and supernatural belief systems, so called 'spirituality' as toxins that destroy thinking abilities in ways that may be even worse than simple narcotics.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
but I think it is fair to treat all religions and supernatural belief systems, so called 'spirituality' as toxins that destroy thinking abilities in ways that may be even worse than simple narcotics.
You do know that many proponents of different religions actually accept evolution don't you? Acceptance of evolution by religious groups [wikipedia.org].
Your gross generalization is more indicative of the poisoning of your own mind than of anything else.
Re:Religion is poison (Score:5, Insightful)
but I think it is fair to treat all religions and supernatural belief systems, so called 'spirituality' as toxins that destroy thinking abilities in ways that may be even worse than simple narcotics.
You do know that many proponents of different religions actually accept evolution don't you? Acceptance of evolution by religious groups [wikipedia.org].
Your gross generalization is more indicative of the poisoning of your own mind than of anything else.
While I don't agree with the original post, you do realize he never said religion is poison solely because of the rejection of evolution by many religious people, don't you? Your gross mis-characterization of his statements put you in a poor position to criticize his argument. He was referring to just one instance of what he feels is religion poisoning minds, not the only instance.
Re:Religion is poison (Score:5, Interesting)
So, in a story about a particular topic, pointing out that a respondents generalization is false by supplying a specific counter example on that same topic is now considered a "gross mis-characterization"?
Sorry. I am not interested in your news letter and don't want to subscribe to it
His counter-example does nothing to show that religion was not responsible for people rejecting evolution. All he does is show that the "religious poison" affects different people differently.
If you need an analogy to see the difference, lets say the article was about how diabetes can cause glaucoma. If the original post was claiming diabetes poisons the body, responding with statistics that not all diabetics suffer from glaucoma does nothing to counter his point.
Re:Religion is poison (Score:4, Insightful)
It is very very very hard to change your gut feelings and morals and values you learned as a child. Yes, as you become an adult you question more and develop individuality but cultural norms are still prevalent.
To be taught science is opinion and opinion is fact and evolution is so incredible silly to believe in with so much overwhelming evidence of creation over and over and over, where fellow kids taunted those silly atheists who do believe messes with your minds even as an adult.
Yes it is part of the southern US cultural to be in fear of science. Scientists are liberals after all which support civil rights and evolution and since it disagrees with some pastor then it must be from the heavons to oppose it etc.
You can bring evidence and even the top biblical scholar Bart Ehrman (go youtube him) talks about it took 15 years leaving fundalemtalism even after seeing the bible contradict itself over and over and over with 400,000 variations from copying mistakes and doctrine. Tell an evangelical the book of John was not written by John but close to the 2nd century and the books of Titus and Timothy were forgories not written by Paul and their brains melt :-)
You can't reason with these people. They have their own so called scientists who have proof carbon dating is a conspiracy. Mainly so there is not proof evolution can exist and also how the real biblical scholars are really wrong :-)
Re:Religion is poison (Score:4, Insightful)
His counter-example does nothing to show that religion was not responsible for people rejecting evolution.
No, he just heavily implies it by stating that religion kills off critical thinking. With the assumption that critical thinking is the hallmark required of people in order to understand and accept things like evolution. In turn I pointed out that many religious people accept evolution, so his premise that religion kills critical thinking is wrong, Or are you going to argue that religious people accepting evolution are doing so by taking it on faith alone and screw the science?
Re: (Score:3)
His counter-example does nothing to show that religion was not responsible for people rejecting evolution.
No, he just heavily implies it by stating that religion kills off critical thinking.
The counter-example I am referring to was made by OzPeter (you), not the original post. The original post did not use any examples to prove his point, he just rambled. He also wasn't countering anything, since he wasn't really arguing with the article. You were the one that brought up specific examples of religions groups that believe in evolution in an attempt to counter roman_mir's ramblings, so I thought it was pretty obvious who I was talking about.
While I agree with you that the original post was overl
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Scientific "faith" is generally "I believe this is true until further evidence suggests otherwise." I see this as a rational response.
Religious "faith" is generally "I believe this is true despite evidence suggesting otherwise." I see this as an emotional response.
It really has nothing to do with you, personally, being able to do studies to verify claims and the comparison doesn't hold up with regards to critical thinking.
Critical thinking is the antithesis of most forms of organized religion because they a
Re:Religion is poison (Score:5, Interesting)
bigotry, be it based on race, creed or color is the true poison. the most closed minded people I've ever met are atheists. the vile hate they spew is just as bad as anything spouted by anyone thumping a bible.
Thinking that religion poisons the mind of people is not bigotry Neither is saying Multiple Sclerosis poisons the mind. Saying that religious people are idiots is bigotry, but saying that religion is responsible for making people appear less intelligence is an attempt to not degrade the actual people suffering from religious belief. It is similar to how the NAACP would blame institutional poverty for problems plaguing minority groups, instead of blaming minorities. That is not bigotry, and neither is calling religion a disease of the mind.
(for what it's worth, I would personally call religion a helpful drug with very bad side effects, not a poison)
Re: (Score:3)
"All things are poison and nothing is without poison; only the dose makes a thing not a poison." --Paracelsus
Rob
Re:Religion is poison (Score:5, Informative)
Don't be an idiot. Can you name a single element of "atheist philosophy" (whatever that is) that supports anybody's murder?
I'm guessing you include Hitler and Stalin as murderers of record numbers of people. And murderers they are. However, they were not atheists.
Hitler said this: "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." Although Hitler did not practice religion in a churchly sense, he certainly believed in the Bible's God. Raised as Catholic he went to a monastery school. He also had all his soldiers wear belt buckles that said "Gott mit uns". That means "God is with US".
To claim that Stalin was an atheist is overly simplistic. As the de facto ruler of the USSR, he initiated many purges. Many clergy were killed and this is often cited as Stalin's anti-christian mark. However, he did not simply remove clergy, he replaced them. He established a new national church of Russia, which of course answered to him. He considered the church very important to extending control from Moscow to the satellite nations. Stalin's church was called the Russian Orthodox Church or The Moscow Patriarchate; and the suppressed church was called the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia. They have a bitter history. Also, look to the resurgence of the church in the USSR during WWII.
You would be more correct by saying "Men with mustaches pretty much hold the record for murdering the most people."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Don't be an idiot. Can you name a single element of "atheist philosophy" (whatever that is) that supports anybody's murder?
I'm guessing you include Hitler and Stalin as murderers of record numbers of people. And murderers they are. However, they were not atheists.
Hitler said this: "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." Although Hitler did not practice religion in a churchly sense, he certainly believed in the Bible's God.
There are many proofs that he didn't believe in the Bible, that he didn't like Christianity etc. When he talked in spiritual and religious terms it wasn't the Christian nor the Abrahamic God that was referred to - it was a more basic representation of nature and (even though he was not a believer) the idea of Germany, nature and blood from esoteric sects that had been influential in the creation of National socialism. He didn't believe in following any rules nor in a judgement of ones actions - something in
Bigotery (Score:3)
"You would be more correct by saying "Men with mustaches pretty much hold the record for murdering the most people."
That would make you "un bigote" (Spanish word for mustache)!
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I see that your thinking abilities have been compromised already. I said religion is poison of the mind, it is a toxin, like botulism.
I didn't say that all religious people will under all circumstances deny evolution specifically.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you have a problem with the specific t
Re: (Score:3)
I find your argument that religion and all spirituality etc is a poison of the mind to be factually inaccurate, given the scientific although circumstantial evidence that people with religion tend to be healthier, happier, live longer, etc than people without religion.
What if imbeciles "tend to be healthier, happier, live longer, etc"?
Would you still rather live a long stupid life?
Re: (Score:3)
Given religion requires belief without evidence, which they call a virtue, idiot seems a most appropriate term.
As Duck Dunn said, If the shit fits, wear it.
Re:Religion is poison (Score:4, Insightful)
The working of your mind isn't gauged by acceptance or rejection of a single thing. There are plenty of people who "accept evolution" who don't think very well.
Abrahamic religions generally preach faith, which is the opposite of skepticism and pretty much anathema to any kind of serious scientific thinking. Most religions seem to share a penchant for elaborate stories used as explanation. Stories are nice, but a tendency to believe them without testing is intellectually lazy.
The OP wasn't very tactful, but some features of religion really do seem to be poison for rational thinking and scientific progress.
Re:Religion is poison (Score:5, Insightful)
faith
noun
1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2.
strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
Even its definition counters your statement. It seems perhaps that you may be confused as to what faith is.
Re: (Score:3)
You're right, that's an unpopular opinion among people who don't profess faith in a magic being. The reason is that it's nonsense. It's perfectly possible to seek knowledge, appreciate beauty and "search for the exceptional in the mundane" without attributing it all to a magic father figure.
The claim is as ridiculous as religious people's claim that without religious belief there is no morality. Read the bible sometime. Nobody who wouldn't be called a psychopath in today's world would hold up the bible
Re: (Score:3)
Science as perceived by some people may have almost religious faith. Science as practiced by scientists doesn't, although there may well be some spiritual appreciation. It's not more difficult to do climate science than biology, despite the relative political impact. Really, if someone brought in evidence against AGW, a lot of climate scientists would be fascinated. We're not likely to get that any time soon, since the evidence points very, very strongly to the conclusion that the Earth's atmosphere is
Re: (Score:3)
You don't know much about Catholics and science, do you? Heck, do any Catholic friars believe in the literal truth of the Bible? That's more a fundamentalist Protestant thing.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think that's true. The formal religion we have in the west is usually very watered down, yes, but even that can still have an enormous impact on public policy. In the US, policies regarding things like stem cell research and abortion are affected by a strong religious lobby. Then there are the indirect effects of being indoctrinated in magical thinking. You only have to watch Oprah or on of the TV physician shows to see how people will believe anybody who comes along with a white smile and a goo
Re: (Score:2)
Even if proponents of different religions accept evolution, the parent post was still dead on. People who do not accept reality are ultimately dangerous and should be given mental health counseling so as not to negatively impact society.
Karl Marx (Score:3)
Karl Marx
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've never really understood the hate for Christianity.
I'm a practicing christian who also runs a company that develops hi-tech products employing over 50 people. To say that my faith is a 'murderer of intelligence' is non sequitur. About the only area where faith and science clash is evolution, and evolution science makes up a minuscule part of the sciences but seems to cause a reaction way out of proportion to its practical significance.
The modern christian church does a lot of good in society. I haven't
Re: Religion is poison (Score:5, Insightful)
What about gay people? What about dangerous ideologies of a political party and people being brainwashed to vote against things like healthcare or deaths in wars?
How is that good?
Denying science is dangerous too. Preventing sex education is harmful.
Re:Religion is poison (Score:5, Informative)
evolution science makes up a minuscule part of the sciences but seems to cause a reaction way out of proportion to its practical significance
Not disagreeing with the rest of your post, but evolution is definitely *not* a miniscule part of the sciences. David Deutsch makes a compelling argument that the same processes that underlie evolution are responsible for all observable knowledge creation -- including science itself. You should really read a more comprehensive treatment, because my attempt to summarize will certainly butcher it, but in a nutshell the idea is that all knowledge is created via processes of variation and selection. In the case of scientific thought, the process begins in the human mind, which comes up with various ideas for potential explanations and then subjects them to critical analysis, selecting against ideas that either don't fit observed facts or don't have elegance, explanatory reach or other useful qualities. After a hypothesis survives this internal gauntlet of selection pressure, it's exposed to criticism from other people, and from experimental testing. Scientific theories that are fit enough to survive go on to spread. Similar analysis shows that all memes behave similarly... as do all other forms of self-organizing knowledge which achieve "universality" (I won't even attempt to summarize the idea of universality).
Further, within the life sciences, evolution isn't a minor sub-topic, it pretty much drives everything. Effectively all our understanding of the physical structure and behavior of living creatures is understood within a framework of evolutionary ideas. Evolution is pervasive and incredibly powerful. It's arguably the single most powerful explanatory idea in all of science, and the most thoroughly validated.
Evolutionary ideas are also applied all over every other branch of science: psychology, behavioral science, computer science, economics... and even in physics and astrophysics. For an example of the application of evolutionary theory to astrophysics, consider cosmological descriptions of the formation of the universe, which postulate formation of many different constructs of energy/matter and analyze which we expect to survive and which will be annihilated, then compare the projected results of this variation-and-selection process against the observable universe.
Evolution isn't "miniscule". To a first approximation, evolution is science.
Perhaps what you meant to say is that the application of evolution to the creation of humans is a miniscule part of science, since that's the part that many religious people have a hard time with (personally, I don't see the problem. Why couldn't God use evolutionary processes? The great thing about variation-and-selection from a creator's perspective is it provides lots of ways to tweak outcomes). I suppose that is a miniscule part of science because the origin of humanity is a miniscule part of science.
I actually find it somewhat odd that so many people get hung up on the conflict between evolutionary speciation and religion, and not on cosmology and religion. The big bang seems much tougher to reconcile with Biblical creation.
Re:Religion is poison (Score:5, Informative)
I haven't seen many 'society of atheists' running soup kitchens, or micro finance banks, or free surgery ships, or child sponsorship programs, or crisis counseling centers, or refugee support programs.
That's because atheism is not a religion. If you cared, I'm sure you would find no lack of secular associations doing that.
As an example, in France, we have Les Restaurants du Coeur [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3)
Now that many of the Christian faiths have been dragged, kicking and screaming, into something vaguely resembling modern understandings of the natural (i.e. real) world... we are now supposed to treat Christianity as though it is not an impairment on the rationality of the world? It will not take long until the next example of a scientific truth that offends religious sensibilities starts the whole thing over again. In the meantime, there are plenty of other things which are not technically evolution but ar
Re:Religion is poison (Score:5, Insightful)
You think that's trolling but a lot of us share that point of view.
Re: (Score:2)
As somebody who's very much atheist, I've noticed that unless somebody is really skeptical, then they have some kind of religious belief. Hippies that claim to be atheist are a prime example; they talk about "auras" and "vibes", and if you ask them what exactly that is, then they start talking about your energy or your spirit or something. Also anybody who ever says "natural is better" or "whole foods are better" when they talk about medicine or diet is also subscribing to a religious belief, as when tested
Re: (Score:3)
I'm an atheist, complete with my COFSM and ULC ordinations.
There are things in this world that I don't understand, and while most certainly any "vibe" I get on something is probably the result of chemicals in my brain responding to some brain-stem trigger I'm not consciously aware of, I think a monosyllabic word that says, "I feel something I can't explain, and I'm going to act on it" isn't a problem.
I don't have answers for why we smile and laugh either. It doesn't make me believe in God (yours, his, or a
Re: (Score:3)
There's a difference between 'religious' and 'spiritual'. ....
Likewise, there's a huge difference between 'a belief' and 'a religious belief'.
However everything you mention ultimately requires having nothing more than "faith" in that particular belief, making it ultimately religious in nature. Just because it isn't written in a book (i.e. a bible) or you don't go to church doesn't make it any less so.
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately, the vast majority of the most brilliant scientists the world has ever seen would disagree with you.
Re:Religion is poison (Score:5, Informative)
Trolling? That guy is just saying what many think, especially in the scientific community or with higher education levels.
Re:Religion is poison (Score:4, Interesting)
Asking an Atheist to define Religion is about as fucking stupid as like asking a Blind Man to define Color.
It's more like asking a neuroscientist to define Alzheimer's.
Re:Religion is poison (Score:5, Interesting)
> 4. I think it is fair to treat all Atheists as having ZERO knowledge about religions and supernatural belief systems
Atheists may actually have a _wider_ knowledge about religions (plural) and supernatural belief systems because they are not constrained by the single religion that they are involved with. The religious followers may also only know what the leaders of the religion want them to know rather than the history those leaders want to hide.
For example: how much do you know about Rastafarianism ? My grandfather was presented with a lion skin cape by Ras Tafari so I became interested enough to study how the religion developed from its Black Power origins created by the freeing of the slaves in British colonies. It seems to me that the creation of this religion follows a template that may have been used for many others in the long distant, or even recent, past.
People know dick (Score:2)
Most people don't even know the difference between evolution and natural selection. When asked what that difference is, many will insist it's the same thing. Most people also equate evolution with constant improvement, even though that's not really what it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't evolution mean that natural selection will work to the advantage of your non-standard... part, or whatnot?
It matters? (Score:4, Interesting)
If we don't want to be preachy religious types, and we don't want to be preachy Science! types, why would we talk about it at all? Besides being the newest, hipest way to try to divide otherwise happy people into warring tribes, what's the goal of polling people about evolution?
Also, is it good or evil to try to divide otherwise happy, peacefully coexisting people into warring tribes?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:It matters? (Score:5, Insightful)
Other people's choices are not your choices.
Other people's choices affect my life and health, so I prefer that these are well informed.
Re: (Score:3)
Other people's choices affect my life and health, so I prefer that these are well informed.
Do they? It's not clear why you think so. Is your preference for other people's choices more important than their preference for your choices?
What's stopping you from just minding your own business and coexisting peacefully with your neighbors who may or may not be as "informed" as you'd prefer? If you'd rather divide people and fight it out with them, you might want to explain why so other people can make an "informed" judgment about your motives.
Re: (Score:2)
What's stopping you from just minding your own business
Self interest, of course. But if you're such a proponent of minding your own business, why are you arguing here ?
Re: (Score:2)
Self interest, of course. But if you're such a proponent of minding your own business, why are you arguing here ?
I'm not. You were responding to me. Very, very vaguely. Hence the questions.
For someone who claims to want people to be informed, you're not very good at providing informative answers to very simple, straightforward questions.
Re: (Score:2)
For someone who claims to want people to be informed
I was expressing a desire, not volunteering for the job. But to expand a bit on something that should be obvious from my first response, people have used anti scientific/religious arguments to fight stem cell research that could be of vital importance to fight diseases that may affect me, my family or other people that I care about.
Re: (Score:2)
...people have used anti scientific/religious arguments to fight stem cell research that could be of vital importance to fight diseases that may affect me, my family or other people that I care about.
They were fighting paying for it with Federal tax money. Other people found other sources of funds, but the research has yielded disappointing results so far.
The controversy was used to divide people into warring tribes with some success though: people trying to widen tribal divisions were able to gain some power for themselves.
But evolution has little (if any) relevance to stem cell research.
Re: (Score:3)
people trying to widen tribal divisions were able to gain some power for themselves
I don't care about the tribal division. I care about my tribe.
But evolution has little (if any) relevance to stem cell research.
Not directly, but people who understand evolution are much more likely to support stem cell research, because they can work without the guilt of messing with God's creation.
Re: (Score:3)
Not directly, but people who understand evolution are much more likely to support stem cell research, because they can work without the guilt of messing with God's creation.
People who don't want us messing with God's Creation (TM) should put their money where their mouth is and destroy all their dogs. After all, we made them by messing with God's Creation (TM), didn't we?
Re: (Score:2)
While other's thoughts on evolution may not have much impact on him, their thoughts on global warming may certainly have an impact on him, especially if he lives in a coastal city. Their thoughts on vaccination may harm his children.
Re:It matters? (Score:5, Insightful)
Polling data matters? How so? And why is it your business whether someone else makes "informed" choices or "uninformed" choices? Other people's choices are not your choices.
If the people making "uninformed" choices are in power or can influence those in power, then they can prevent me from making my "informed" choice and leave my with no choice.
That matters.
Can you *know* something you don't even believe? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be curious how we are supposed to understand knowledge coupled with disbelief of the thing that's allegedly known.
I have knowledge of copper and oxygen and what wires do. That does not mean I believe that deoxygenated copper audio cables distort the signals they carry less than regular old copper ones.
I have knowledge of hydrogen generators and automotive fuel systems and the claims of some that feeding an engine hydrogen split from water by the automotive 12V system will improve gas milage, but I do not believe those claims.
I have knowledge of a person called Orenthal James Simpson, that there was a glove that was s
Re: (Score:2)
Among epistemologists the near-consensus is that belief is one of the necessary ingredients of knowledge.
Cite? I know lots of things I don't believe in. For example, I have quite a lot of knowledge about how magic works in various fictional systems. I find it much more likely that you're mischaracterizing the belief/knowledge of epistemologists than that they're really that stupid.
Re: (Score:3)
Among epistemologists the near-consensus is that belief is one of the necessary ingredients of knowledge.
Cite? I know lots of things I don't believe in. For example, I have quite a lot of knowledge about how magic works in various fictional systems. I find it much more likely that you're mischaracterizing the belief/knowledge of epistemologists than that they're really that stupid.
I feel the same way you do, but:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entr... [stanford.edu]
"There are three components to the traditional (“tripartite”) analysis of knowledge. According to this analysis, justified, true belief is necessary and sufficient for knowledge.
The Tripartite Analysis of Knowledge:
S knows that p iff
p is true;
S believes that p;
S is justified in believing that p.
The tripartite analysis of knowledge is often abbreviated as the “JTB” analysis, for “justified true belief”."
certa
Re: (Score:3)
suggests that disbelief does not entail lack of knowledge. Can that be?
It's pretty easy to see how it works in this case:
Elephants evolved, but humans didn't because humans are special.
These people don't seem to disbelieve evolution, they largely seem to disbelieve that humans evolved.
this is meant to be good? (Score:4, Insightful)
Willful ignorance is far worse than simple ignorance.
Properly constructed surveys (Score:2)
Writing a good survey is hard, since question order may influence the questions that follow. Consider:
- Did humans evolve from an earlier animal ?
- Did elephants evolve from an earlier animal?
vs
- Did elephants evolve from an earlier animal?
- Did humans evolve from an earlier animal ?
The numbers given to 'did humans evolve', would likely be different based on whether the elephant question was asked before or after. It is not simply a question of whi
Re: (Score:2)
just being honest (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And for various reasons, Americans trust government experts less than Europeans.
It's a tough choice to generalize here. I know some government officials I trust, some I don't. I know some Europeans I trust, some I don't. Maybe the percentage of the trustworthy Euros is a bit higher...
But then, what if some of the Europeans I know are government officials? Do I trust them or not?
Re: (Score:2)
Of course eurotrash trust their governments more. They let the government control more of their GDP. It's an easy measure, that cannot be bullshitted, of how much people trust their government.
Darwin theory of evolution in about 3 minutes (Score:2)
Susan Blackmore gives definitive explanation of what evolution is all about:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
the talk covers it in the first 3 minutes and then goes on to things that are just as fascinating, but i won't spoil that for you :-)
Parrots (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference between the "humans" and the "elephants" answers shows that 50% of the "creationists" are just parroting the church's views when talking about humans but when they put their mind in gear, as in the "elephant" question, that actually believe in evolution.
Re: (Score:2)
A scientist and a preacher are walking in the wood (Score:2)
... and they come across a neon sign that says, "Eat. At. Joes --->"
The preacher says, "Huh. Look, at that. It's a sign!" ... very interesting."
The scientist says, "Yes. It has glass, rubber, steel, paint, neon gas I presume
"Wait, what? My scientist friend, it's a sign."
"Well, we don't know that for sure, do we?"
"Of course it's a sign! It says, 'eat at Joes'."
"Well, who is this 'Joe'? Has anyone ever seen him? How do we know he exists?"
"...."
Re: (Score:2)
"Well, who is this 'Joe'? Has anyone ever seen him? How do we know he exists?"
We can test it. Follow the sign for a bit, and see if there's a Joe making food.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you fool! It could be one of Joe's employees making the food. Therefore God exists and evolution is false!
Not that surprising, even without religion (Score:2)
It is easy to imagine the world as something mechanical, governed by mathematical laws. But me... I must be special, I have a consciousness, and free will, I can't be described by the same laws.
Because fellow humans seem to behave like me, and because I was born from humans, it is natural to think that they also have a consciousness, free will, etc... So they are probably special too. Elephants, nah... not special, evolution is OK for them.
At least we made progress : only white males used to be special (for
Doublethink (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a textbook example of doublethink. Nobody actually believes that elephants have evolved over millions of years, but Adam was just put there. So apparently a quarter of people have an inconsistent belief system, or just two conflicting ones - let's say one from school and one from church - without realizing it. I'm sure if they were confronted with this, they would make some sort of excuses or explanations.
Re: (Score:2)
They may believe that human evolution was "guided" by god, such that they don't consider it natural evolution. Doesn't mean they believe in a biblical Adam and Eve.
Most people know evolution is true. (Score:2)
That is why religious people sponsored surveys make it sound as reactionary and iconoclast
Re:"Belief" in Evolution required for Gravity Wave (Score:5, Insightful)
politically-correct "belief" in evolution
There's nothing political about it. Just cold hard science. And the same applies to global warming.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"Belief" in Evolution required for Gravity Wave (Score:5, Insightful)
Second, of all, a vague profession of "belief" in Evolution* is being made into a nonsensical substitute for OMG IF YOU FAIL THIS TEST THEN YOU HAVE REJECTED ALL SCIENCE FOREVER.
Riddle me this, please tell me how failure to profess the politically-correct "belief" in evolution means you can't do any of the following: 1. Design nanoscale materials. 2. Detect gravitational waves. 3. Successfully perform brain surgery. 4. Sucessfully launch a spacecraft.
None one credible would claim religious belief prevents successful scientific research. Most significant scientific research up until perhaps 50-100 years ago was performed by religious people. The questions is whether this religious belief slows or prevents some scientific research that would have been successful if not for religion.
Neil Degrasse Tyson gave an arguably perfect lecture [youtube.com] describing the dangers of religious convictions affecting the scientific research. One of his best examples was of the scientist he respects the most: Isaac Newton. Even one of the greatest scientists of all time limited the scope of his research once he decided only God could describe the movement of celestial bodies.
If celestial mechanics can be affected by the same religious belief that encourages the rejection of evolution, there are probably no fields of science that cannot be affected.
Successfully perform brain surgery.
I hope the success of a weak minded man like Ben Carson in the field of neurosurgery is enough to show that field has far more to do with hard work than it does with the kind of rational thought necessary for scientific research. Just because neurosurgeons are highly paid does not mean they should be confused with neuroscientists.
Re:"Belief" in Evolution required for Gravity Wave (Score:5, Insightful)
Right. You either accept evidence and rational thought as your foundation for how the universe really operates, or you are fundamentally in an inconsistent position.
If you decide that evolution 'just doesn't make sense to you', and is therefore false, then you should probably say the same about quantum mechanics... and by extension, you should not believe in the operation of a transistor, and by extension not believe in your own cell phone
Hypocrisy of this kind is very common, largely because people don't connect the dots.. but the dots are connected. To do otherwise is to be like a person who uses Galileo and Newton's theories about motion to predict where a cannonball will land, but denies heliocentrism.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am a rocket scientist, you insensitive clod!
Re:"Belief" in Evolution required for Gravity Wave (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Hey, leave us Slashdotters out of this!
Re:Obvious (Score:5, Informative)
It is obvious to anyone that elephants evolved form wooly mammoths
It might be obvious, but it's wrong. They both have a common ancestor, one did not evolve from the other. The same thing goes for humans and other extant apes.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if humans created God, then humans get pretty upset of God behaves in ways they don't like.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Don't care (Score:4, Insightful)
My belief is humans, were conceived in "God's image". That is my belief, you can believe it, not believe something else.
And you can believe it, there's nothing wrong with that. Where it becomes dangerous is when you try to force that belief on others, when you add the word therefore
We're conceived in God's image, therefore
Re: (Score:2)
Given GP's punctuation and grammar, I doubt I would take his word for what the weather was like, let alone the existence of a Supreme Being.
Re:why learn about a theory with holes in it? (Score:4, Informative)
Your absurd lack of understanding about biology - and the fact that you obviously haven't put much effort into trying to understand it - is a fine example of the very point you are attempting to argue against. Thank you for demonstrating so clearly the danger of thinking you have the answer, rather than actually studying the topic in question and continuing to research it until your theory lets you make predictions consistent with future findings.
A small sampling of the ways in which you are completely wrong:
1) Mutations can be passed down from either parent; it is not necessary that the other parent have some "compatible" mutation.
2) Mutations do not need to be related to the sex chromosomes in order to be passed along, they merely need to be present in the DNA of the gametes.
3) Speciation (that is, one or more mutations which make a creature reproductively incompatible with its population of origin) does not need to occur in one generation; it's entirely possible for an intermediate species to be compatible with two species that are not compatible with each other, and that intermediate species often die out some time after breeding populations of the divergent (and better-adapted) species have become established.
For somebody who doesn't appear to even understand the most basic concepts of Mandelian inheritance, you sure seem to *think* you know a lot about evolution, though. Perhaps your science teachers and/or classroom materials were selected more for ideological compliance than for accurate scientific knowledge?