/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.6544927]

>42 per cent of Americans are “not too” or “not at all” confident that all life on Earth is the product of evolution. Similarly, 51 per cent of people expressed skepticism that the universe started with a “big bang” 13.8 billion years ago, and 36 per cent doubted the Earth has been around for 4.5 billion years.

>The American public’s bias against established science doesn’t stop where the Bible leaves off, however. The same poll found that just 53 per cent of respondents were “extremely” or “very confident” that childhood vaccines are safe and effective.

>When it comes to global warming, only 33 per cent expressed a high degree of confidence that it is “man made,” something the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has declared is all but certain.

>The good news, such as it was in the AP poll, was that 69 per cent actually believe in DNA, and 82 per cent now agree that smoking causes cancer.

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/america-dumbs-down/

Gentlemen, how do we save America?

[Anonymous No.6544930]

>>6544927
By not trusting corporate media with their easily distorted polls.

[Anonymous No.6544933]

>>6544927
>Similarly, 51 per cent of people expressed skepticism that the universe started with a “big bang” 13.8 billion years ago
Aren't there still a lot of problems with Big Bang cosmology? This might not be unjustified.

[Anonymous No.6544935]

Poll taxes and literacy tests.

We need the informed electorate back.

[Anonymous No.6544936]

>SCI1.
>On the next few screens, you’ll see a series of statements about science and medicine. For each of them, please indicate how confident you are that the statement is correct.
The way this is worded, it combines disagreement with the premises of the question with a complete lack of knowledge on the subject, together into the same category.

For instance, the Earth is 4.5 billion years old question - it could be the case that someone answers "not too/not at all confident" for this answer because they know that the earth is millions to billions of years old but not specifically how old it is, and does not know if the 4.5 billion year figure is correct.

[Anonymous No.6544937]

>>6544933
>Aren't there still a lot of problems with Big Bang cosmology?

I assure you that the American public's skepticism in the big bang is not rooted in quantum-mechanical problems in the Standard Model.

[Anonymous No.6544938]

>>6544927
>1 in 5 Americans don't believe smoking causes cancer

[Anonymous No.6544943]

>>6544938

3 in 10 don't believe DNA exists.

THREE IN TEN AMERICANS DO NOT BELIEVE IN DNA.

[Anonymous No.6544945]

>>6544943
This is so hard to believe because I haven't met anyone that I know who doesn't believe in DNA.

[Anonymous No.6544947]

>>6544936
>For instance, the Earth is 4.5 billion years old question - it could be the case that someone answers "not too/not at all confident" for this answer because they know that the earth is millions to billions of years old but not specifically how old it is, and does not know if the 4.5 billion year figure is correct.

That's bullshit and you know it. The popularly quoted figure is 4.5 billion years. It's obvious that the question is gauging whether you believe this figure is correct to within some degree of tolerance and no one would disagree because the Earth might actually be 4.492 billion years old or 4.518 billion years old or something. The people disagreeing with the statement believe the figure is too high by several orders of magnitude, largely for religious reasons.

[Anonymous No.6544961]

>>6544947
>That's bullshit and you know it.
It's not bullshit at all. And the whole point of writing good survey questions is such that the only way to answer is in the manner intended by the survey provider.

We can't make any assumptions about the mindset used to answer the questions or the meaning behind the answers without specifically asking or instructing the subjects.

These were shitty questions.

[Anonymous No.6544962]

>>6544943
this is fucking hilarious

[Anonymous No.6544968]

>>6544943
>>6544938
>>6544937

[Anonymous No.6544972]

>>6544961
Another problem with stuff like this is people are going to think it's funny to purposefully submit stupid/sarcastic answers.

I won't deny that the American public has its issues with science, however.

[Anonymous No.6544978]

>>6544961
>We can't make any assumptions about the mindset used to answer the questions

Uh, yeah you can. People are not having minor scientific quibbles, they are young earth creationists. Certainly other polls confirm that.

[Anonymous No.6544984]

>>6544936
>The way this is worded, it combines disagreement with the premises of the question with a complete lack of knowledge on the subject, together into the same category.

Ignorance of basic science and inability to understand the meaning implicit in statements like "the earth is 4.5 billion years old" are equally as problematic as outright denying the established science. That's how science denial spreads, it feeds on ignorance.

[Anonymous No.6544986]

>>6544978
>Uh, yeah you can.
Sure, you can, but it's poor scientific practice and shoddy methodology. If you want to interpret the results a specific way, best practices are to more carefully word your questions and give specific instructions to the test taker.

[Anonymous No.6544990]

>>6544984
Of course you're right that ignorance can be just as bad as denial. I pointed that out not to excuse the answers but because everyone here was assuming the reasoning to be denial when that's not necessarily the case.

[Anonymous No.6544991]

>>6544986
>Sure, you can, but it's poor scientific practice and shoddy methodology.

No, it's just using basic critical thinking and not being a pedant.

[Anonymous No.6544992]

>>6544984

I mean, if you disagree with the statement that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old because the figure has a +/- tolerance of 10 million years, you're essentially number illiterate. You're the same type of person who thinks a government program costing $20 million contributes in any meaningful way to our $2 trillion national debt.

[Anonymous No.6544993]

>>6544991
Assuming things to be the case with little evidence is not critical thinking.

[Anonymous No.6544996]

>>6544927

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism#United_States

includes several polls over the years, including

>According to a 2001 Gallup poll,[194] about 45% of Americans believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so."

[Anonymous No.6544997]

>>6544927
Those numbers points in the right direction though no? I remember them being absolutely abysmal just a few years ago.
If the numbers of people subscribing to a scientific account of the origin of things increase despite the full front assault of christian interest groups
that's been taking place over the last decades that is something to be optimistic about.

If you read history you realize that people always have been dense as fuck but across the centuries they slowly catch on.
That's the only thing to be really proud of when you look at our track record, on the whole we tend to improve over time.

[Anonymous No.6544998]

>>6544993

It's not "little evidence."

[Anonymous No.6545005]

>>6544945
Apparently Norm MacDonald is one of them...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_i0uvsyTPg

[Anonymous No.6545006]

>>6544998
Sure it is. You've offered nothing but your own speculation as evidence.

[Anonymous No.6545007]

>>6545006

Look, it's obvious you're determined to come to a certain conclusion, so I'm not going to argue with you. But these people are creationists, see >>6544996 if you actually care.

[Anonymous No.6545010]

>>6545005
What a great example of a person who does not understand how science operates.

[Anonymous No.6545019]

>>6545006
You can also look at international surveys of similar topics.
To believe we actually don't have a ignorant populace in the US because of widespread trolling among the respondents,
you must believe that trolling surveys are a huge thing in the US.

Or that people in places like europe say they belive in DNA as a goof, while really subscribing to 'god made man in his image' type deal.

[Anonymous No.6545028]

>>6544997
They do not point in the right direction if you compare us to other countries in the here and now. America is suffering a brain drain and is rapidly falling behind the rest of the world, economically, politically, and in discovery. Not to mention our obstinance and willingness to be misled by corporate interests is exacerbating climate change to a point of no return.

I for one do not find these numbers comforting or acceptable, and don't for a second feel complacent.

[Anonymous No.6545033]

>>6544927
>was that 69 per cent actually believe in DNA
wat
People don't believe this?

[Anonymous No.6545055]

>>6545028
>I for one do not find these numbers comforting or acceptable, and don't for a second feel complacent.

That's good, we need people like you that don't get disillusioned easily and keep clawing away on the
behemoth of stupidity even though your personal effort barely will put the thiniest of dents it's immense capacity for complete ignorance.

I'm not that guy, I just put my hands behind my head, lean back all relaxed and say "well fuck." and observe things as they unfold.

[Anonymous No.6545089]

>>6544927
>69 per cent actually believe in DNA, and 82 per cent now agree that smoking causes cancer.

Did they interview people who have never gone to school or something? Those who gave answers had to be giving dumb ones on purpose--there is no way someone is this stupid

[Anonymous No.6545109]

Sorry OP, you wont get good discussion with only one american flag in the pic
posting flag to attract americans

[Anonymous No.6545112]

Carpet bomb the south. Problem solved

[Anonymous No.6545118]

>>6545112
and the midwest.

[Anonymous No.6545140]

Kill all the religious people...

[Anonymous No.6545157]

>>6544972
The World public has issues with everything thanks to google. They can look at conspiracys from the comfort of their own home. There are people who say they're going to eliminate "chemicals" from their life. Its laughable. Google and the internet gives people the idea they are as well informed as someone who's studied a subject fro their entire life.

[Anonymous No.6545175]

ocassionally i think to myself "how many people don't believe that the united states landed on the moon" and then i realize that even if the answer is one out of every one thousand people (it's probably closer to 1 in 6) it'd be inexcusably high for a species that i am a member of.

then the depression sets in, as i know there is absolutely nothing i can do in my entire lifetime to undo the stupidity brought on by their upbringing of religious and/or racist parents.

hopefully in about 150 years all of the goddamned retards will have died off and their children's grandchildren will have had relatively seperate upbringings and all this will go away, but i don't live then, no matter how much i wish i did.

[Anonymous No.6545192]

>>6545089
>there is no way
I personally know some of these people. They don't understand even when shown proof. This is what happens when you have corporate politicians running a country for 60 years. We're doomed. Don't let this happen to you.

[Anonymous No.6545197]

>69 per cent actually believe in DNA
This is what I don't get, man. All the other things, I can see how people doubt it. Be it via their religious beliefs or a simple lack of information, all of the other items in the survey can at least be doubted without a huge stretch of the imagination.
But DNA. How do you doubt that DNA exists. Unlike the other things, it is a physical object that has been readily identified and sequenced by thousands if not millions of scientists. Beyond the obvious observational validity, even the stupidest of people can realize that little Johnny "has his mommy's eyes" or that little Clive "is tall like his dad." It's obvious through simple day to day life that some genetic vector exists.
I'm not entirely sure of the level of delusion that would be necessary for 31% of my countrymen to think that DNA is some sort of global scientific conspiracy to convince us that we pass on traits.

[Anonymous No.6545200]

>>6544935
Agree 100%
>bud das racist

[Anonymous No.6545210]

>>6544935
Absolutely

There are WAY TOO MANY PEOPLE that do not, or refuse to, give a fuck about politics. They just don't fucking understand the issues they're being asked about

Every single person eligible to vote should have to pass a test that asks basic political questions. Nothing biased, just fact-checking. Ignorant people should not have the right to vote

[Anonymous No.6545218]

>>6545210
Let's take it a step further. Only land owners who can pass that literacy/political test should be allowed to vote. They're the only ones with a real vested interest in this nation anyway.

[Anonymous No.6545220]

murica

[Anonymous No.6545223]

>>6545218
>only land owners
No, only intellectuals.

[Anonymous No.6545225]

>>6545200
>bud das racist

To be fair, every application of "literacy tests" in the U.S. has been explicitly, extremely racist.

[Anonymous No.6545234]

>>6545225
My state used to have literacy tests. When it was implemented then blacks were not given proper educations. Today, everyone has free access to public education. And you can't really claim that "black" schools are worse than "white" schools because there's no such thing in my area anymore. Black kids get bussed from the ghettos to the suburbs to go to school with white kids. Since everyone has access to a decent education in 2014, I don't think it would be explicitly racist today.
But this topic is quickly derailing this thread into a /pol/ tier discussion.

[Anonymous No.6545236]

>>6545225
>To be fair, every application of "literacy tests" in the U.S. has been explicitly, extremely racist.
If we fairly administered the test, there would be nothing racist about the results.

[Anonymous No.6545240]

The key to a literacy test is to make it so simple you'd think it'd be impossible to fail. Then you dumb it down.

I'm thinking questions like: Who is the president of the United States? Which are the two biggest parties? Who is the leader of the conservative party?

Then you publish the questions beforehand so people can study.

Actually publish the answers too.

[Anonymous No.6545244]

>>6545240
I like this idea. I'll add one more, the one I think is the most important question
Name the three branches of the US government and describe their roles in the government.

[Anonymous No.6545253]

>1/3rd of Americans don't believe in DNA

Good to know that if I ever have a trial where irrefutable DNA evidence is the main evidence against me, I still have a realistic chance of getting off.

[Anonymous No.6545263]

>>6545240
>>6545244
Because there's no way this could ever be abused when a party manages to exert influence on the questions that go in, right?

>True or False: Global warming has been proven to caused by humans
>Answer: False
>The main driver of economic growth is:
>A) Minimal government regulation, B) taxes, C) a decent minimum wage, D) the middle class
>Answer: A

[Anonymous No.6545269]

>>6544935

That's oversimplifying the problem. The scientific issues that we put first (e.g. climate change and evolution) are not major talking points when politicians go campaigning. They mostly talk about jobs and taxes, especially considering the economy is still in a slump. The closest thing they ever come to talking about science is generally that they have "Christian values" (i.e. Earth was made 6000 years ago, creationism should be taught in schools, God loves us all, if we embrace Jesus the economy will get better and America will return to being the greatest moral superpower in the known universe).

Seriously, fuck American politics. On one side we've got idiots who support creationism and corporatism and just want to fuck over everyone who doesn't have a million dollars in their bank account, and on the other we've got spineless wimps who just want to toe their party's line, even if the president is making serious mistakes, and never stick their necks out for fear of getting pushed out of office.

[Anonymous No.6545275]

>>6544927

These statistics are bullshit.
Americans are stupid, but not that stupid.

[Anonymous No.6545281]

>>6545269
This. The way to fix the electorate's idiocy is with rigorous curriculum in school. Logic and critical thinking should be taught at every grade level, with increasing sophistication (duh). Science should be taught in a way that emphasizes scientific thinking and reasoning over rote memorization of facts. Physics, biology, and chemistry should all be required to graduate from high school (apparently some school districts don't do this).

Unfortunately this will never happen because politicians intentionally try to avoid teaching kids logic, critical thinking, and science. Liberals do it because they're trying to inflate graduation rates, and everything I just mentioned would probably put some school districts into single digit graduation rates. Conservatives do it because they know that they'll lose voters/Christians if they do that (no, seriously, the Texas republican party outright said that).

[Anonymous No.6545287]

>>6545281
You forgot math. Calculus should also be required in order to graduate.

[Anonymous No.6545293]

>>6545089
Even if you can show such a person DNA, fossils, etc., they can simply reply with "Well, the devil is just deceiving you."

This thought process raises interesting philosophical points which these people don't really appreciate.

[Anonymous No.6545309]

>>6545281
>Logic and critical thinking should be taught at every grade level, with increasing sophistication
The problem with this is that kids are too stupid to intuitively grasp why they're learning the stuff they're learning. I remember times when I overheard people asking why they should ever learn algebra, let alone calculus or anything resembling probability and statistics. They ask why they should learn history, ask if they'll ever use knowledge of classic literature, and consider learning another language to be a useless endeavour. I'm not even Murrkan.

The problem with Wittgenstein's Ladder is that you don't easily see what's above you.

[Anonymous No.6545311]

>>6545263
>implying there exists any government system without the potential for abuse

[Anonymous No.6545331]

>>6544927
you can blame Jenny McCarthy for the vaccine bullshit.

[Anonymous No.6545336]

>>6545309

but history is useless and calculus/probability/statistics is also useless to the vast majority of the populace.

if someone wants to be a scientist by all means teach them that stuff, or a history teacher i suppose, but the vast majority of things taught in schools are actually useless, aside from teaching kids how to learn shit that they have no interest in learning, which becomes a fundamental life skill later on.

[Anonymous No.6545349]

> 42 per cent of Americans are “not too” or “not at all” confident that all life on Earth is the product of evolution.
I feel fairly confident, but I do have some doubts on some of the mechanisms
> Similarly, 51 per cent of people expressed skepticism that the universe started with a “big bang” 13.8 billion years ago,
I'm very skeptical of the big bang.
I understand the evidence of it expanding, but that that leads directly to it existing at a single point?
> 36 per cent doubted the Earth has been around for 4.5 billion years.
I have a little doubt about this and I'm 99% sure that it's greater than 2000 years.

> The same poll found that just 53 per cent of respondents were “extremely” or “very confident” that childhood vaccines are safe and effective.
I'm not sure about this either as some /sci/ poster raised some doubt

> >When it comes to global warming, only 33 per cent expressed a high degree of confidence that it is “man made,” something the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has declared is all but certain.
same for climate change.
I still think we should do our best to combat it though
> The good news, such as it was in the AP poll, was that 69 per cent actually believe in DNA,
that's hilarious


Since when is skepticism looked down upon?

[Anonymous No.6545359]

We... have problems with people believing in DNA?

I honestly had no idea that was a thing.

[Anonymous No.6545365]

and to top it off, rising inflation and healthcare and university tuition inflating faster than the inflation of money assures that tomorrow's americans will be even dumber without the ability to go to college, take care of themselves, or even feed themselves

[Anonymous No.6545377]

>>6545336
>history is useless

Having a memory isn't useless. If every member of the species knows what happened last time we did X they would act wiser confronted with a new scenario.

For instance here were I live we had a pair of open air events called 'world wars' last century and murdered a couple of million people and destroyed a bunch of cities.
It is a common sense idea for the future if people have a fucking clue what caused these events to unfold.

[Anonymous No.6545383]

>>6545349

on evolution:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13620-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions.html#.U3v-iCjHuHF

on vaccines: not sure that the statistic is accurate or that vaccines are safe and effective?

skepticism is not looked down upon unless it is skepticism of rigid, common-sense facts.

[Anonymous No.6545384]

>>6545377
>It is a common sense idea for the future if people have a fucking clue what caused these events to unfold.
Don't be silly, everyone knows that the nazis caused both wars. We just need to watch out for nazis.

[Anonymous No.6545389]

>>6545377

major events, like the world wars and the births and deaths of superpowers are, yes, very useful to anyone who intends to:
conduct a world war
create a superpower

to everyone else it is as much window dressing. it doesn't matter to me that we won world war 2, nor would it matter if we lost, as none of it was in any way something i could influence. are world wars bad? yeah, they're not great, but any human being with common sense knows that genocide in any form, let alone racially or religiously motivated, is about the worst possible thing you can ever do as a person. you don't need to read about it in a book for 9 months memorizing it and taking an exhaustive uninteresting and utterly pointless exam to get the point through.

[Anonymous No.6545390]

>>6545384
>the nazis caused both wars. We just need to watch out for nazis.

...

You wouldn't even know a member of the NSDAP if he came up an hailed you in the face anon.

[Anonymous No.6545397]

>>6545390
All I'm saying is that people honestly believe that both world wars were purely caused by the nazis. I know because I've met such people.

[Anonymous No.6545399]

>>6545389
>are world wars bad? yeah, they're not great

today on /sci/ : geopolitical maturity of thought.
Also, I fucking hate my species.

[Anonymous No.6545406]

People only find these scientific findings controversial if it conflicts with their religion.....like evolution or dna or the big bang theory. They either need to accept these things as compatible with their religion or deny them. Why is there no uproar about quantum mechanics or relativity? These are arguable even more intuitive theories (proven theories) but no one protests these because their doctrine says nothing about them.

[Anonymous No.6545409]

>>6545112
The research triangle in North Carolina actually has a pretty high concentration of PHD's

[Anonymous No.6545410]

>>6545287

/sci/'s esoteric math fetish doesn't justify having it taught in school. In fact much of school these days is obsolete or superfluous junk for people who want to get STEM degrees. Reap the unintended consequences that you sow.

[Anonymous No.6545412]

>>6544930
Lel
GTFO out, op. This is less true than all the misconceptions on your list put together.
But get this: New studies show that 98% of americans are sure that statistics provided by self-incentivized corporations are completely infallible.

[Anonymous No.6545413]

>>6545365

Good. College is a scam that rears people in careers that are completely irrelevant to their mickey mouse degrees.

[Anonymous No.6545420]

>>6545409
The intelligent people born in those necks of the wood probably flee the NASCAR-tier infinite loop retardation happening all around them and take refuge in solitude and books.

[Anonymous No.6545426]

>>6545420

>implying it's not niggers that bring down America

[Anonymous No.6545428]

>>6544935
>literacy tests
agree fully
>poll taxes
fuck? why? seriously re-think that.

>>6545281
schools can't raise children, a huge portion of their development is rooted in their parents

[Anonymous No.6545441]

>>6545005
>Taking ANYTHING that Norm MacDonald says seriously

How many times does he open with that "I don't do drugs or alcohol" bit whilst clearly on both? He does it to tell the audience right off the bat that he'll lie or say basically anything if it's funny, he doesn't give a fuck, which is a big part of why he's so great.

[Anonymous No.6545448]

>>6545383
> evolution
wow that doesn't cover any of the things I'm skeptical of.
What is the mechanism of abiogenesis?
How do we go from 12 pairs of chromosomes to 13 pairs of chromosomes?

> on vaccines

see pic.
also some recall in Europe

> skepticism is not looked down upon unless it is skepticism of rigid, common-sense facts.
First these are not "common-sense"
If they were they'd been discovered a very long time ago.
Second you should be skeptical about everything to a point. You should still be able to use common knowledge to advance knowledge.
But if you don't question your knowledge you can't defend it properly.
You become a mindless drone parroting anything you hear.

[Anonymous No.6545461]

>>6545005
>>6545010
>>6545441
Plus now that I've actually watched the video, it's a valid point even if it was meant seriously ... modern science requires us to take things on faith as being true that we can't empirically verify ourselves, put that together with widespread bad science reporting and some of it isn't that different to religious edicts to the layman, especially since we've done the easy stuff and are now probing the nature of reality.

Also whether he meant it that way or not there actually are problems with mitochondrial DNA evidence in particular not being nearly as unique as prosecutors would have you believe. They're skilled in the art of lying with statistics to make it seem a lot more certain than it actually is, and that's before you get into lab contamination problems. Much of the legal profession hates the "CSI effect" which has convinced jurors more than ever that miniscule mtDNA traces are slam-dunk evidence when they're just not.

[Anonymous No.6545474]

>>6545349
>Since when is skepticism looked down upon?
When you're being skeptical without having a good reason for being skeptical. The difference between a smart skeptic and an idiot is that the smart skeptic has well thought out criticisms that can be supported or disproven, and is willing to retire his skepticism. An idiot's critiques boil down to "I can't understand any of this" and he is not willing to change his mind as he's convinced he cannot possibly be wrong. A smart skeptic seeks out information that can better inform him on both his views and his opponents'; an idiot only seeks out information that supports his own view, if he even bothers to seek out information at all.

[Anonymous No.6545478]

>mfw /sci/ thinks a mixture of hot gas gave rise to conciousness

[Anonymous No.6545522]

>>6545448
These are all covered in an upper division evolution class, why not find some online videos.

[Anonymous No.6545532]

>>6545478
>consciousness
bait,jpg

[Anonymous No.6545537]

>>6545522
Because time is finite and I'm so very curious.

I don't claim that because I don't know these things they didn't happen. Just that I'm skeptical about things I can't explain.

[Anonymous No.6545616]

>>6545413
but that's IB / AP

[Anonymous No.6545633]

>>6544927

>believing evolution

[Anonymous No.6545635]

>>6545633

[Anonymous No.6545642]

Eh. I have no reason to trust this data. The .pdf that goes into detail of the survey shows a varying n for each category, and only called it a "nation-wide survey of 18+ adults". Optional survey sampling and a 3.2 percentage range at 95% confidence tells me that this information could be a little inaccurate to be taken with certainty. If I saw this survey, I'm sure I'd probably throw it away, but I feel as though those who are stupid enough to answer badly, would love to show their opinion and send in theirs. Biased.

[Anonymous No.6545646]

>>6545635
That's big if it's really what the study implies, but the paper title in footnote 1 is actually about mtDNA ... I don't know enough about genetics, but it seems dubious to infer much at all about phenotype from this. Can it be used as a proxy in genetic drift studies or something?
>Spoiler: I don't really know what genetic drift is either

[Anonymous No.6545655]

>>6545089

I know someone who is a creationist. I asked them if they believed that the DNA the justice system uses to match murderers and rapist to the killers is right and justified. They told me of course they have proof of it right there in their blood samples. I told them that one way they prove evolution is by doing the same type of DNA matching to link us to all be connected in the unity of life. They just flat out said that's wrong God did blahblahblah. I could only shake my head at them.

[Anonymous No.6545695]

>>6545655
To some extent we are ALL prone to cognitive dissonance and bias, including scientists which is why double-blind trials are necessary. However true believers take this to the point that MRI scans have shown they instantly shut down and mostly ignore any data that contradicts their worldview.

If you want to try and engage with such people, respect and don't directly oppose their existing beliefs even if you think they're full retard, it won't work. Also if you haven't read the Bible recently you probably have some incorrect ideas about what those beliefs are (admittedly maybe they do too.) Try positing that evolution could be part of God's plan, that it may be the method he chose to bring about creation, or if they insist animals were literally created in modern form maybe evolution exists now as part of the free will and post-Fall "knowledge" granted to us. A lot of even quite fundie creationists acknowledge that *microevolution* of bacteria etc occurs, since it's kind of hard to deny when anyone with some fairly cheap lab equipment can observe it in real time.

I think the basic problem most creationists have with evolution is they think it implies a "watchmaker" creator that just wound the universe up then wandered off somewhere, therefore God exists but doesn't care about us, which terrifies them. This can perhaps be countered with the idea that God and his plan is of necessity beyond human understanding, so he could do such a thing whilst still being in control at all times, and again maybe it was somehow necessary to give us free will.

>Weak agnostic, but I do have respect for religion e.g. some of the oldskool Christian theologians were great thinkers in general

[Anonymous No.6546060]

>>6545461
>now that I've actually watched the video
Well, that's it.
You distrust things that are labeled "science" and the battle lines have been drawn. If you don't accept our rede as absolute truth, you are against us.
You are hereby banished from /sci/, get thee hence, go >>>/vp/

[/sacasm]
I'm more concerned with our inability to spot bias in a poll than in our false dichotomies and dogma, personally. It was close though. Eh, to each their own.

[Anonymous No.6546089]

>>6545633
>>6545635
>>6545646
These pictures all deal with different topics anon. The first one is obvious /pol/esmoker tier retardation. Second one is a retarded /pol/esmoker interpretation of some research papers (note the use of pseudoscience 1950s terms like Caucasoid). The third picture is 1990s population genetics using FST except it's been labeled by an idiot who doesn't know anything about population genetics. Also, if you want to talk about FST then you should really look at modern material, that shit's ancient. We hadn't even sequenced the human genome then.

Refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixation_index#FST_in_humans

[Anonymous No.6546122]

>>6544927
I think there is only one answer:

We don't.

How can it be possible to get a world of mostly people who either could care less or simply don't know about the world they live in? The ratio of people actually being productive towards the race as a whole to people who are just a waste of resources is not in favor us surviving.

Of course, I'm sure people will keep figuring stuff out to keep the race going, but when will we reach our limit? Or actually get our shit together and have a really nice future...

[Anonymous No.6546151]

>>6545275
I met a girl in a medical college that thinks humans were created as we are today.

[Anonymous No.6546154]

>>6546151
Oh boy.

[Anonymous No.6546163]

>>6544937
HA! You're right, the American public's skepticism in the big bang is not rooted in quantum theory. But mine is.

[Anonymous No.6546172]

>>6546151
Am I a conspiracy theorist for thinking undercover creatonists go through higher education hiding their beliefs so that when they finally get their degree, creationists can say "See? An EXPERT agrees with us!"

[Anonymous No.6546176]

>>6545448
>What is the mechanism of abiogenesis?
Not evolution, evolution only explains the diversity of life; genesis is genesis

[Anonymous No.6546206]

>>6545695
Look at this guy being all sensible and open-minded.
You're on 4chan, buddy.

[Anonymous No.6546286]

Americans are stupid and uneducated. More at 11.

[Anonymous No.6546402]

>>6545389
how can you be so deeply stupid and yet so confident in your understanding of these issues? I really hope you're just some overconfident got-everything-figured-out hoy shit teen.

[Anonymous No.6546404]

Why do we need people's opinions on scientific fact?

We'll end with stupid shit like
>1 in 3 Americans do not believe that 2+2=4

Why does opinion need to have weighting in facts

[Anonymous No.6547121]

>>6546404
>Why do we need people's opinions on scientific fact?
Where understanding is impossible belief is required.

[Anonymous No.6547170]

>>6544927
Good, skepticism is better than just being a yuppie who just goes with whatever the television tells them.

[Anonymous No.6547175]

>>6544927
>>42 per cent of Americans are “not too” or “not at all” confident that all life on Earth is the product of evolution

Do you think it's remotely possible, even the smallest chance, that the most basic building blocks for life originated in space and were seeded on our planet through meteorites?

If YES? Then you're a filthy American who doesn't believe in Evolution. How can you be so dumb!

[Anonymous No.6547184]

>>6545695
>some of the oldskool Christian theologians were great thinkers in general

They absolutely were, but not because they were Christians. Their position as literate scholars gave them access to concepts
outside Christianity unavailable to the general public of the time.

The fact that things like scholasticism hardly improved on Aristotle for a thousand years should tell you something held them back though.
In my view that something was a king-kong sized monkey named 'dogma', it was the zeitgeist of their times and pure huuuurhuurr tier.

[Anonymous No.6547418]

>>6544927

Are you implying there's not a reason for people to be skeptical about the shit you're injected with?

People will always get their vaccines, they don't want to die, but that doesn't mean they don't have the right to ponder over the fact there's substances in the vaccines that can potentially harm you.

Some vaccines are quite literally low-dose toxins.

[Anonymous No.6547421]

>>6547418

you**

[Anonymous No.6547444]

Honestly, if more people believed in DNA, that would be even dumber, because DNA proves evolution.

[Anonymous No.6547448]

>>6546060
>/vp/

B-b-but we are the biggest supporters of evolution. I mean, Monkeys evolve to humans at level 36, right?

[Anonymous No.6547636]

>>6544927
Oh shove it up your ass.
Americans aren't stupid, we are a subject race, they never even give us a chance.
How are you supposed to educate yourself when you are constantly being fed lies and propaganda?
This has nothing to do with intelligence, it is a matter of country; something you british/french/scandinavian fucks know nothing about.
I find it hilarious that you would even judge people based on intelligence when clearly these statistics show a huge problem with the American education system, meanwhile europeans thinking they're the cultural and intellectual center of the world just because the fucking budget is higher and good education doesn't bankrupt you.

[Anonymous No.6547689]

>>6545448

Why are people so desperate to re-learn things in the most agonizingly painful and drawn-out way imaginable?

http://www.mercurynews.com/health/ci_25777948/whooping-cough-rise-california

[Anonymous No.6547697]

>>6547418
>Some vaccines are quite literally low-dose toxins.
>vaccines are homeopathy
Like, woah

[Anonymous No.6547727]

You guys are gonna freak out when you hear this.

https://www.abeka.com/Distinctives.aspx

I was homeschooled using this curriculum, and while my English, Reading, and History skills are quite excellent, my scientific and mathematical training was lacking.

>Science:
>The Investigation of variety, order, and reasonableness revealed in creation. The A Beka Book Science and Health Program presents the universe as the direct creation of God and refutes the man-made idea of evolution.

This is to be expected of a fundamentalist curriculum, but when I read the math statement I nearly fell out of my chair.

>Mathematics
>Unlike the "modern math" theorists, who believe that mathematics is a creation of man and thus arbitrary and relative, A Beka Book teaches that the laws of mathematics are a creation of God and thus absolute. Man's task is to search out and make use of the laws of the universe, both scientific and mathematical. A Beka Book provides attractive, legible, and workable traditional mathematics texts that are not burdened with modern theories such as set theory.

Repeat
>not burdened with modern theories such as set theory

Apparently, set theory is anti-god because it is not absolute, and reveals the existence of multiple infinities. This, apparently, makes people think that god isn't the only infinity, whatever the fuck that means, and thus should not be taught.

I want off this wild ride.

[Anonymous No.6548524]

>>6547727

[Anonymous No.6548558]

>>6547727
It would be interesting to see what they say about 0.999... = 1.

[Anonymous No.6548578]

>>6547697
>vaccines are homeopathy
This is hilarious. I wonder why more homeopaths don't hold up vaccines as an example of homeopathic principles being accepted in the mainstream. It would be kind of hard to refute.

[Anonymous No.6548579]

>>6545448
I don't really care if the vaccines work, I just want to know if they cause any long-lasting side effects/health problems.

[Anonymous No.6548591]

>>6545461
>modern science requires us to take things on >faith as being true that we can't empirically >verify ourselves, put that together with >widespread bad science reporting and some >of it isn't that different to religious edicts to the >layman,

Yes indeed.
On any of these "is x real" questions, there are people who can, to their satisfaction, evaluate/check the scientific consensus themselves, and people who go by the word of someone else. Most people who say, for example, "yes, evolution is real" are just accepting the word of some authority, it's just a different authority than the people who say "evolution is not real" are using.

[Anonymous No.6548602]

>>6548579
Yeah, it's hard to dispute that the vaccines have their intended effect, and that they're safe in the sense of not causing serious and obvious immediate effects, but it's also hard to rule out the possibility that the vaccines have subtle unintended effects, particularly with problems that seem to be increasing, for poorly-understood reasons, such as obesity, mental illness, and especially autoimmune defects.

[Anonymous No.6548624]

>>6544927
It is correct for people to not express confidence in things they don't understand.

Who the fuck doesn't believe in DNA, though? And why? Or is "actually believe" really "have a high degree of confidence in" again?

[Anonymous No.6548626]

>>6547727
>I was homeschooled using this curriculum

Tell us more anon. How/when did you realize you were being fed bullshit?

On that note I've always had a suspicion that smart kids raised in religious families end up being better scientists, because they've managed to pass a kind of Pons Asinorum where they realize their parents fed them bullshit, and will thenceforth distrust information justified by authority. I was never raised in that kind of environment so I worry that if/when I'm confronted with novel bullshit that I can't instantly refute, I'll take it on faith.

[Anonymous No.6548631]

>>6548602
This is a problem with most prescription medication actually.
There are just too few clinical studies into the more subtle effects of some medications and even if they were proven harmful the FDA would simply put a black-box warning on it and license it for general use under various other names from various other sellers.
I've seen it happen, too, it's diabolical, but it fits the business model so they keep doing it.

[Anonymous No.6548663]

>>6547175
>conflating evolution with abiogenesis
>2014
pls be jk

[Anonymous No.6548666]

>>6548631
Similarly, for food additives.

While it's bad to assume that very useful things are harmful, it's also bad to treat any suggestion that they might be harmful as some kind of anti-science kookery.

[Anonymous No.6548693]

>>6548626
I was in 11th grade when I started to doubt my faith. I became depressed, got senioritis in 12th grade because I didn't want to learn about bullshit like this, and started doing better in university.

I didn't even realize that set theory was something I needed to be taught until I took a college algebra (basically, function graphing, basic analytical geometry, non-calculus based sequences and sums introduction) and was completely blindsided. Luckily, I learn quickly and am doing a math minor along with my business degree now.

I decided internally and explicitly one day that I would believe in things I either saw evidence for or had reason to believe logically was true. I never reached fedora stage, but I made that conscious decision, and shortly after declared myself agnostic.

I don't resent my parents though. They're simply misguided, and didn't actively attempt to sabotage my education. I still love them, still live with them during the summer, but I don't consider myself religious anymore.

>will thenceforth distrust information justified by authority

I will say I'm more skeptical than many people I know. It's difficult, because I can easily fall into a conspiracy mindset due to that distrust of verification by authority alone. I don't purport to know very much scientifically (I have very little training in macroevolution or climate science, and therefore rarely engage in discussions on them) but I am learning, and I am starting to gather a sort of justification for commonly held scientific beliefs such as the aforementioned disciplines.

This might be the wrong thread, but does anyone have a sort of starter book for people who have little background in non-intelligent design? I'd like to begin building up that knowledge base.

[Anonymous No.6548708]

>>6548693
>This might be the wrong thread, but does anyone have a sort of starter book for people who have little background in non-intelligent design? I'd like to begin building up that knowledge base.

I know people will think >fedora, but Dawkins wrote a really lovely book called "The Greatest Show on Earth" which is about why exactly evolution by natural selection is the correct explanation for the diversity of life on earth, and how we come to know this. It's low on religion-bashing which is where most of criticism for Dawkins is directed at.

Any introductory textbook in biology will have more rigorous explanations too, if you're not into popsci.

[Anonymous No.6548802]

I'll just quote, verbatim, from Wednesday's New York Times, page B1:

>"2012, when tests performed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development on 15-year-olds found the US in 26th place among 34 countries in math, 17th in reading, and 21st in science."

But America is 1st is spending per student.

intredasting.

As for my pet theories why: social dynamics, pollution, religion, and technology.

[Anonymous No.6548829]

>>6545109

Get yer DNA off my lawn!

[Anonymous No.6548834]

>>6548802
>But America is 1st in spending per student.

[citation needed]. Links, sources?

[Anonymous No.6548838]

>>6548802
>not controlling for race

european americans tend to outperform europeans
chinese americans tend to outperform native chinese
african americans outperform africans

(guess which ones drag down the overall score though)

[Anonymous No.6548849]

>>6547184
Many of them did get into science fields out of curiosity about how God did something. There is not always a science/religion fence where you can only belong to one side or the other. Straddling it does not have to be an option either. There simply is no fence.

A lack of literacy in scientific topics does not make someone religious. It simply makes them ignorant.

[Anonymous No.6549050]

>>6548802
How funds are allocated in public system is also screwy. Schools in affluent districts receive more than those in poor ones because of how tax dollars are collected and distributed.

[Anonymous No.6549091]

>>6548802
>religion
m-muh Christian dark ages.

[Anonymous No.6549401]

>>6545461
That is literally the only way science can advance. We are no smarter than early human what we do have is a common ground work of shared and built upon common knowledge. This Knowledge is inherently unbiased because again it is a direct representation of the facts. Furthermore, the whole faith arugment is basedless because Faith is belief in the absense of evidence. Science is entirely the opposite, if you really want to you can replicate FOR YOURSELF every experiment and draw your own conclusions. Faith is the exact opposite if you doubt some thing there is no baseline to refer back to."the great scientific conspiracy" relies basely on the fact that scientist are an entirely homogenous and noninclusive group. When in fact, scientists have no obligation to agree with each other other than commonly verified evidence. Scientist transgress social, ethnic, economic, and political boundaries and, again are not bound by a single code.

So really you're not taking it on faith you're taking it on your self substantiated experience that was validated by pre-existing scientific information and if you want to question, there is always, ALWAYS a way to repeat the experiment and substantiate there hypothesis FOR YOUR SELF.

[Anonymous No.6549418]

>>6548591
yeah, but the difference in those authorities is that if you ask them questions regarding their claims, or to explain and support them, one can give you answers and the other can't.

[Anonymous No.6551185]

>tfw agnostic
>tfw don't believe in evolution or big bang

[Anonymous No.6551213]

>>6551185
The site has 18 age limit