Scientific Literacy Test

JohnR7

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2002
25,258
209
Ohio
✟29,532.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
It has been said that only 25% of the people are scientificly literate. Do you think that is true?



The Internet Infidels Test of Scientific Literacy

Answer each question with 'true' if what the sentence most normally means is typically true and 'false' if it is typically false.

1. Scientists usually expect an experiment to turn out a certain way.
2. Science only produces tentative conclusions that can change.
3. Science has one uniform way of conducting research called “the scientific method.”
4. Scientific theories are explanations and not facts.
5. When being scientific one must have faith only in what is justified by empirical evidence.
6. Science is just about the facts, not human interpretations of them.
7. To be scientific one must conduct experiments.
8. Scientific theories only change when new information becomes available.
9. Scientists manipulate their experiments to produce particular results.
10. Science proves facts true in a way that is definitive and final.
11. An experiment can prove a theory true.
12. Science is partly based on beliefs, assumptions, and the nonobservable.
13. Imagination and creativity are used in all stages of scientific investigations.
14. Scientific theories are just ideas about how something works.
15. A scientific law is a theory that has been extensively and thoroughly confirmed.
16. Scientists’ education, background, opinions, disciplinary focus, and basic guiding assumptions and philosophies influence their perception and interpretation of the available data.
17. A scientific law will not change because it has been proven true.
18. An accepted scientific theory is an hypothesis that has been confirmed by considerable evidence and has endured all attempts to disprove it.
19. A scientific law describes relationships among observable phenomena but does not explain them.
20. Science relies on deduction (x entails y) more than induction (x implies y).
21. Scientists invent explanations, models or theoretical entities.
22. Scientists construct theories to guide further research.
23. Scientists accept the existence of theoretical entities that have never been directly observed.
24. Scientific laws are absolute or certain.
 

I_Love_Cheese

Veteran
Jun 1, 2006
1,384
53
✟9,374.00
Faith
Agnostic
a lot of things have been said, but Homer said it best.
[SIZE=-1] Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything. 14% of people know that. [/SIZE]
AllJoneses.com - Because Everything Else Is Just Keeping Up[SIZE=-1]... check out http://tochka.jp/pikapika... 8/20/2006 7:56:10 PM | 108 Views | 1 Comment ... 42.7 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot. ...
alljoneses.com/ - 60k - Sep 6, 2006 - Cached - Similar pages[/SIZE] freshmeat.net: Project details for PHPlist[SIZE=-1]by LRdM - Aug 31st 2003 17:35:56. While the outstanding design and features list got my attention, ... 83.27% of all statistics are made up on the spot ...
freshmeat.net/projects/phplist/ - 37k - Cached - Similar pages[/SIZE]
NerdTests.com :: View topic - ...[SIZE=-1]making up statistics~~~~Nerdy. In fact did you know that 23% of all statistics are made up on the spot. _________________ ...
www.nerdtests.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=218& - 53k - Cached - Similar pages[/SIZE]
GoddessLilith on deviantART[SIZE=-1]~RIPIX · Jun 25, 2006, 2:56:45 PM. thx for the :+fav: on my really old brush pack :) ... 42.9% of all statistics are made up on the spot :D ...
goddesslilith.deviantart.com/ - 46k - Cached - Similar pages[/SIZE]
From naftali@harmonic.co.il Sun Jul 6 00:56:49 1997 X-VM-v5-Data ...[SIZE=-1]From naftali@harmonic.co.il Sun Jul 6 00:56:49 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil ... 42.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot. ...
www.gnu.org/software/emacs/windows/ntemacs/discuss/telnet - 11k - Cached - Similar pages[/SIZE]
Japanese Consumers Predict PS3 To Be Cheaper than Xbox 360 ...[SIZE=-1]Wait I meant to say 90% of all statistics made up on the spot are wrong including ... 11-25-2005, 12:56 AM. In other news, 40.9% of Japanese poll-takers are ...
www.xgpgaming.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-19839.html - 10k - Cached - Similar pages[/SIZE]
drpeterjones.com » Blog Archive » Padding Content Boxes with CSS[SIZE=-1]This entry was posted on Thursday, September 8th, 2005 at 1:56 am and is filed under design, web. ... 82% of all statistics are made up on the spot. ...
drpeterjones.com/index.php/design/padding-content-boxes-with-css/ - 19k - Cached - Similar pages[/SIZE]
Storage Advisors » Blog Archive » Is RAID-6 made of wood?[SIZE=-1]And all of this is set up with a simple, industry-standard GUI with as few ... that analysts are untrustworthy: 86% of statistics are made up on the spot. ...
storageadvisors.adaptec.com/2005/11/03/is-raid-6-made-of-wood/ - 38k - Cached - Similar pages[/SIZE]
 
Upvote 0

Chalnoth

Senior Contributor
Aug 14, 2006
11,361
384
Italy
✟28,653.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
1. I'd say this is false. Scientists try not to do spurious work: if the result is already known, why bother? We are still human, however, and will always have opinions. But we never hold our own opinions sacred.
2. Absolutely false. The results of experiments don't change in science. But when we start probing a new area where we haven't yet done experiments, we often need to discover new laws about how the world works.
3. True, to an extent. But the scientific method is a very, very broad term.
4. True, to an extent. This is absolutely true when you're talking about a theory where you can't ever see the inner workings, like gravity or electricity and magnetism. This is not true of something where all of the components of the theory are individually-testable, like the theory of evolution (which is a fact because all of the individual requirements of the theory have been experimentally tested and verified...you can't do this with all theories).
5. Absolutely false. Many scientists have faith in a god. However, to be a scientist, one must always accept that it is possible to be wrong about one's own research.
6. It tries to be. But scientists are still humans, and while the scientific method is very, very good at preventing interpretations from clouding things, it's not perfect.
7. Absolutely false. Scientists specialize. Some work in theory. Some experiment. Some do both.
8. Not really. Theorists are always working on new theories, independent of experiment. Good theorists will show what sorts of experiments can be done to confirm or eliminate their own theory. But it is not until the experiments are done that actual progress is made: the experiments are what allow us to narrow down the theoretical possibilities from what could make up the universe to what does make up the universe.
9. Manipulation of experiments is the biggest tabboo in science. Any scientist who is found to be manipulating evidence intentionally is immediately ostracized, and would have a very hard time ever finding a job in science again. A scientist who is believed to have manipulated evidence accidentally is typically thought of very poorly, and any future research done by said scientist is similarly looked down upon.
10. False. One can never prove absolute truth.
11. False. See 10.
12. False. While we are still human and carry our own beliefs about what we cannot see into the job, the goal of science is to eliminate this factor as much as possible.
13. True. Imagination and creativity are core assets for good problem solving, and are highly useful when tempered by logic.
14. False. If a theory is to be scientific, it must not just explain a physical phenomenon, but also supply concrete predictions that can be tested experimentally.
15. False. A scientific law is an empirical statement about how the world operates.
16. Of course. Good training for any scientist includes teaching skepticism and independent thought. Scientists are taught that the best thing they can possibly do is find a way to overthrow old theories through new discoveries. This certainly affects our perceptions of data and whatnot, just not in the way you continually claim.
17. True. However, it is worth noting that every scientific law has only been proven true within a specific range of application. New experiments always allow the possibility to move outside the range of application of the original law.
18. A theory and hypothesis are completely different things. A theory is a rule or set of rules which draw connections between disparate phenomena. A hypothesis is an educated guess that is meant to be tested in an experiment. From a theory, one derives a specific hypothesis to test in an experiment. The idea being that in testing the hypothesis, one is testing the underlying theory. The definition of a theory is unrelated to how much has been done to test the theory.
19. False. In describing, one is explaining.
20. False. Science relies upon both, and requires both.
21. True.
22. True.
23. True.
24. Only within a specific range of application where the law has been tested.
 
Upvote 0

Chalnoth

Senior Contributor
Aug 14, 2006
11,361
384
Italy
✟28,653.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
here is the link for anyone interested.

So how did you do, John? Why do you agree or disagree with any of the answers?
Wow, many those answers to that are just plain wrong. While some questions are ambiguous and open to interpretation, I particularly dislike question 2, for instance.
 
Upvote 0

DJ_Ghost

Trad Goth
Mar 27, 2004
2,737
170
53
Durham
Visit site
✟11,186.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
I particularly dislike question 2, for instance.

Why? In science we do not deal in proof, only in evidence, so we o not deal in facts, only in "the most likely explanation". Hence Question 2 is perfectly valid, although the language used is a tad imprecise and is open to being misinterpreted by some.

Ghost
 
Upvote 0

JohnR7

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2002
25,258
209
Ohio
✟29,532.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Some of the questions are rather poorly worded...

I mean, for example, if you are manipulating your results... then you can't be called a scientist
It comes from the infidels website, so you can not expect to much from them.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Hydra009

bel esprit
Oct 28, 2003
8,593
371
41
Raleigh, NC
✟18,036.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Some of the questions are rather poorly worded...

I mean, for example, if you are manipulating your results... then you can't be called a scientist
It happens, though - unintentionally or intentionally, manipulating one's results has happened. That said, this isn't how experiments should happen, and this is why experiments are attempted in an objective a manner as possible, like double-blind experiments and duplication by other scientists - to minimize this sort of thing.
 
Upvote 0

Hydra009

bel esprit
Oct 28, 2003
8,593
371
41
Raleigh, NC
✟18,036.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Giving you credit for the ones you did not answer you got 7 of them wrong so you get a D.

Anyone else want to impress us with your knowledge of science :)
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones; a person missing one of the trickier questions is better than a person who still thinks science is "too hot to handle" and does not attempt to understand.
 
Upvote 0

Chalnoth

Senior Contributor
Aug 14, 2006
11,361
384
Italy
✟28,653.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Why? In science we do not deal in proof, only in evidence, so we o not deal in facts, only in "the most likely explanation". Hence Question 2 is perfectly valid, although the language used is a tad imprecise and is open to being misinterpreted by some.
I rather disagree. While absolute proof is clearly not possible whenever one is comparing against the real world, there are a great number of conclusions that we can now say with great confidence to be final. Examples would be the properties of gravity from a few millimeters to millions of light years, the properties of the electromagnetic force at low energy, the existence of electrons, protons, neutrinos, and a whole zoo of other subatomic particles. And so on and so forth.

None of these conclusions are tentative in any way. While our understanding of them is subject to modification whenever we delve deeper towards the fundamental laws of physics, due to experiment there are a great number of things of which we can be very certain indeed.
 
Upvote 0

Caphi

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2005
959
28
35
✟16,259.00
Faith
Hindu
1. Scientists usually expect an experiment to turn out a certain way.

True, actually. However, the scientists are also fully prepared to draw the appropriate conclusions if the experiment turns out the other way. Haven't you ever been to a science fair? They have to have a hypothesis. You know, stuff like "The plant in the water will grow better than the plant in the Fanta."

2. Science only produces tentative conclusions that can change.


True.

3. Science has one uniform way of conducting research called “the scientific method.”


The details of the method may be different for different fields (say, chemistry vs. psychology), but yes.

4. Scientific theories are explanations and not facts.
Of course.

5. When being scientific one must have faith only in what is justified by empirical evidence.
What else would you like to have faith in? Stuff that isn't justified by evidence?

6. Science is just about the facts, not human interpretations of them.


Science is about explaining the facts. Human interpretation is naturally going to enter into it. Which is not to say people don't strive for objectivity.

7. To be scientific one must conduct experiments.


Naturally. Experimentation is nothing more than the testing and rechecking of existing or proposed hypotheses or theories.

8. Scientific theories only change when new information becomes available.


Correct. However, new information shows up pretty frequently, so "only" gives a not quite accurate connotation.

9. Scientists manipulate their experiments to produce particular results.


Ahahahano.

10. Science proves facts true in a way that is definitive and final.
No.

11. An experiment can prove a theory true.
An experiment can support a theory.

12. Science is partly based on beliefs, assumptions, and the nonobservable.


No.

13. Imagination and creativity are used in all stages of scientific investigations.


Yep.

14. Scientific theories are just ideas about how something works.


Well, no. Scientific theories are THE ideas about how something works which has been supported by repeated experimentation.

15. A scientific law is a theory that has been extensively and thoroughly confirmed.
Wrong. Scientific laws are mathematical descriptions of processes.

16. Scientists’ education, background, opinions, disciplinary focus, and basic guiding assumptions and philosophies influence their perception and interpretation of the available data.


Again, this is not true in practice, but objectivity is something to strive for.

17. A scientific law will not change because it has been proven true.

I can't say that. Newton's laws aren't strictly true because of relativity. However, they still work marvelously whenever their hidden assumptions are approximately true (for example, when the ratio of the object's speed to the speed of light is very close to 0).
18. An accepted scientific theory is an hypothesis that has been confirmed by considerable evidence and has endured all attempts to disprove it. Yep.

19. A scientific law describes relationships among observable phenomena but does not explain them.


Yes.

20. Science relies on deduction (x entails y) more than induction (x implies y).


Yes. A rainstorm will entail a wet sidewalk, but I'd be hard-pressed to conclude that a rainstorm just happened because of a wet sidewalk.

21. Scientists invent explanations, models or theoretical entities.


Sorry, you are thinking of religion.

22. Scientists construct theories to guide further research.


Scientists construct theories to explain the behavior of the world. The further research is either to test the theory or attempt to take advantage of the theory's implications, which a) is applied science, and b) also indirectly tests the theory.

23. Scientists accept the existence of theoretical entities that have never been directly observed.


Directly? No. Have they been inferred, and have the consequences of their existence been confirmed by experiment? Yes.

24. Scientific laws are absolute or certain.
NO.
 
Upvote 0

MewtwoX

Veteran
Dec 11, 2005
1,402
73
37
Ontario, Canada
✟9,746.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Liberals
Looking through the questions, I got four wrong.

I guess I'm in the B range, but I have to agree those multi-choice are vaguely worded. For example 9 had me thinking they were saying scientists alter their experiments to achieve the conclusions they predicted, which is obviously false.

It looks like they really meant the alteration of methods in order for the conclusion of an experiment to be relevant to what they want to find out.

#5 as well, makes use of the word faith and implies that there isn't any sound basis for going on Empirical research, when in fact what they meant was that the inductive method in science has to rely on validity of previous bodies of science being correct through their validation in the past, which isn't epistemologically sound "proof".

That and 12's use of the term "unobservables" and "assumptions" fooled me into again thinking no basis, when they're talking about indirectly observed phenomena and the inductive method again.

Tricky tricky...
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

I_Love_Cheese

Veteran
Jun 1, 2006
1,384
53
✟9,374.00
Faith
Agnostic
Looking through the questions, I got four wrong.

I guess I'm in the B range, but I have to agree those multi-choice are vaguely worded. For example 9 had me thinking they were saying scientists alter their experiments to achieve the conclusions they predicted, which is obviously false.

It looks like they really meant the alteration of methods in order for the conclusion of an experiment to be relevant to what they want to find out.

#5 as well, makes use of the word faith and implies that there isn't any sound basis for going on Empirical research, when in fact what they meant was that the inductive method in science has to rely on validity of previous bodies of science being correct through their validation in the past, which isn't epistemologically sound "proof".

That and 12's use of the term "unobservables" and "assumptions" fooled me into again thinking no basis, when they're talking about indirectly observed phenomena and the inductive method again.

Tricky tricky...
I got about the same and for the same reasons. Several questions had rather poor wording. You manipulate conditions not experiments. The use of the word faith changes the connotation of the entire question. Science is not based on beliefs, assumptions etc. they are unavoidable and must be used but they are not a base. Science always uses a scientific method but that method is far from uniform in many ways so which one do you want, and invent is just the wrong word.
The rest of the article is not much better, overall not very impressive.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums