Who the shitting fuck disagrees that the Earth goes around the sun once per year
What kind of fucking retard thinks that statement is wrong
Good God, even if the sample population was silly, that is still rediculous
It doesn't.
It goes around the sun once per year and .2425 days.
If we're going to be pedants, a year is quite literally "the time it takes the earth to go around the sun".
But since that definition doesn't work well with calendars, and because a year isn't exactly a consistently fixed unit of time, we normally just fudge it (365.25 for a unit of time, 365+leap days for calendars).
End on
I wish that someway, somehow, that I could save every one of us
0
Options
jackalFuck Yes. That is an orderly anal warehouse.Registered Userregular
Who the shitting fuck disagrees that the Earth goes around the sun once per year
What kind of fucking retard thinks that statement is wrong
Good God, even if the sample population was silly, that is still rediculous
It doesn't.
It goes around the sun once per year and .2425 days.
If we're going to be pendants, a year is quite literally "the time it takes the earth to go around the sun".
But since that definition doesn't work well with calendars, and because a year isn't exactly a consistently fixed unit of time, we normally just fudge it (365.25 for a unit of time, 365+leap days for calendars).
Besides the "antibotics" thing, that chart in the bottom left should really be a line chart instead of a bar chart, since the x-axis is a continual (i.e. time) rather than categorical variable. And the values on the x-axis should be spaced out to allow for the differing intervals of time between each measurement, otherwise it's not an accurate representation of the trend.
This article on scientific literacy is itself failing at scientific literacy pretty hard.
No, that's more of a graphical representation of data thing.
It could be a graph about ass fucking vs does it count at camp, and it would still be a bad way to display the information. That doesn't really reflect on the data itself.
I don't know, I think being able to communicate scientific information clearly and honestly falls under "scientific literacy". Mind you, that's probably a more stringent definition than the surveyors are applying to their sample group.
Butler on
0
Options
VivixenneRemember your training, and we'll get through this just fine.Registered Userregular
Who the shitting fuck disagrees that the Earth goes around the sun once per year
What kind of fucking retard thinks that statement is wrong
Good God, even if the sample population was silly, that is still rediculous
It doesn't.
It goes around the sun once per year and .2425 days.
If we're going to be pendants, a year is quite literally "the time it takes the earth to go around the sun".
But since that definition doesn't work well with calendars, and because a year isn't exactly a consistently fixed unit of time, we normally just fudge it (365.25 for a unit of time, 365+leap days for calendars).
Thank you for saving me from having to type that.
Orbits are a heck of a thing.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Who the shitting fuck disagrees that the Earth goes around the sun once per year
What kind of fucking retard thinks that statement is wrong
Good God, even if the sample population was silly, that is still rediculous
It doesn't.
It goes around the sun once per year and .2425 days.
If we're going to be pendants, a year is quite literally "the time it takes the earth to go around the sun".
But since that definition doesn't work well with calendars, and because a year isn't exactly a consistently fixed unit of time, we normally just fudge it (365.25 for a unit of time, 365+leap days for calendars).
I want to argue that by allowing the "fudged" answer to be the only correct one we're poisoning the survey pool, but the truth is even in a perfect survey we're still far too scientifically illiterate.
They have a list of the questions and how they were phrased in the survey. Most of them seem to be simple "do you agree or disagree with this statement" questions, which probably led to a bit of frustration and confusion for some respondents. The one about the earth taking one year to go around the sun springs to mind... well no, it takes a little over a year and there are only two options, so "disagree!"
They also mention that they had some difficulty formulating a test that respondents wanted to sit through:
It is also clear that
respondents have a limited patience in terms of the number of open-ended science knowledge
questions that they will attempt to answer before ending the interview or quitting the questionnaire.
I wish they went into more detail about how the test was administered, and who was responding to it. It seems like there may have been some respondents that simply got fed up with the test and finished it as quickly as possible.
It's also interesting to note that of the nations surveyed, the US ranked the second highest in scientific literacy, beaten only by Sweden!
Long story short: I hate when newspaper or magazine articles attempt to distill complex information down to headlines, and I really hate that in this day and age an online article does not link back to the original study that the article is about! This study not a good reason to "hate people", and although the numbers could be better, the US is actually doing a pretty good job when it comes to science literacy (comparatively speaking).
Although, more focus on science education is always a good thing.
Didgeridoo on
0
Options
jackalFuck Yes. That is an orderly anal warehouse.Registered Userregular
Well, I mean. It's only a gram of salt. That's not really a lot. I mean are we comparing volume recognition or what is a high volume for human consumption?
I'd tell him his BS stands for bullshit, though.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
Options
VivixenneRemember your training, and we'll get through this just fine.Registered Userregular
In even more shocking news, 89% of internet posters believe any statistic if it's presented with a sufficient amount of outrage.
After a bit of confusion caused by the fact that they're sourcing Jon Miller of Michigan State University, not University of Michigan(the latter is an astrophysicist), I found their original source, that being another magazine
Didge already pointed out that the U.S. is above average in scientific literacy, but while I can't find any specific survey, they're talking about shit like the relative size of subatomic particles, the ideas behind evolution, stem cell research, and so on. I've found no place so far where the magazine in the OP got their "survey results".
Well, I mean. It's only a gram of salt. That's not really a lot. I mean are we comparing volume recognition or what is a high volume for human consumption?
I'd tell him his BS stands for bullshit, though.
we were talking about consumption and I told him he shouldn't eat an entire bag in one day
also his failure to understand that sodium does not necessarily mean the same thing as salt
if the sodium came from sodium chloride, that means ~2.55 grams of salt
Well, I mean. It's only a gram of salt. That's not really a lot. I mean are we comparing volume recognition or what is a high volume for human consumption?
I'd tell him his BS stands for bullshit, though.
A lot of salt was what his wife turned into when she looked back
They have a list of the questions and how they were phrased in the survey. Most of them seem to be simple "do you agree or disagree with this statement" questions, which probably led to a bit of frustration and confusion for some respondents. The one about the earth taking one year to go around the sun springs to mind... well no, it takes a little over a year and there are only two options, so "disagree!"
They also mention that they had some difficulty formulating a test that respondents wanted to sit through:
It is also clear that
respondents have a limited patience in terms of the number of open-ended science knowledge
questions that they will attempt to answer before ending the interview or quitting the questionnaire.
I wish they went into more detail about how the test was administered, and who was responding to it. It seems like there may have been some respondents that simply got fed up with the test and finished it as quickly as possible.
It's also interesting to note that of the nations surveyed, the US ranked the second highest in scientific literacy, beaten only by Sweden!
Long story short: I hate when newspaper or magazine articles attempt to distill complex information down to headlines, and I really hate that in this day and age an online article does not link back to the original study that the article is about! This study not a good reason to "hate people", and although the numbers could be better, the US is actually doing a pretty good job when it comes to science literacy (comparatively speaking).
Although, more focus on science education is always a good thing.
In even more shocking news, 89% of internet posters believe any statistic if it's presented with a sufficient amount of outrage.
After a bit of confusion caused by the fact that they're sourcing Jon Miller of Michigan State University, not University of Michigan(the latter is an astrophysicist), I found their original source, that being another magazine
Didge already pointed out that the U.S. is above average in scientific literacy, but while I can't find any specific survey, they're talking about shit like the relative size of subatomic particles, the ideas behind evolution, stem cell research, and so on. I've found no place so far where the magazine in the OP got their "survey results".
They have a list of the questions and how they were phrased in the survey. Most of them seem to be simple "do you agree or disagree with this statement" questions, which probably led to a bit of frustration and confusion for some respondents. The one about the earth taking one year to go around the sun springs to mind... well no, it takes a little over a year and there are only two options, so "disagree!"
They also mention that they had some difficulty formulating a test that respondents wanted to sit through:
It is also clear that
respondents have a limited patience in terms of the number of open-ended science knowledge
questions that they will attempt to answer before ending the interview or quitting the questionnaire.
I wish they went into more detail about how the test was administered, and who was responding to it. It seems like there may have been some respondents that simply got fed up with the test and finished it as quickly as possible.
It's also interesting to note that of the nations surveyed, the US ranked the second highest in scientific literacy, beaten only by Sweden!
Long story short: I hate when newspaper or magazine articles attempt to distill complex information down to headlines, and I really hate that in this day and age an online article does not link back to the original study that the article is about! This study not a good reason to "hate people", and although the numbers could be better, the US is actually doing a pretty good job when it comes to science literacy (comparatively speaking).
Although, more focus on science education is always a good thing.
In even more shocking news, 89% of internet posters believe any statistic if it's presented with a sufficient amount of outrage.
After a bit of confusion caused by the fact that they're sourcing Jon Miller of Michigan State University, not University of Michigan(the latter is an astrophysicist), I found their original source, that being another magazine
Didge already pointed out that the U.S. is above average in scientific literacy, but while I can't find any specific survey, they're talking about shit like the relative size of subatomic particles, the ideas behind evolution, stem cell research, and so on. I've found no place so far where the magazine in the OP got their "survey results".
Quoting myself and Didge for BotP
What if I didn't care the first time either though
and I think it's pretty funny that people get all up in a huff about Americans not being scientifically literate without even examining what they're being told
huh, I wonder how those stupid, dumb, idiotic Americans could possibly have come under the influence of misinformation
They have a list of the questions and how they were phrased in the survey. Most of them seem to be simple "do you agree or disagree with this statement" questions, which probably led to a bit of frustration and confusion for some respondents. The one about the earth taking one year to go around the sun springs to mind... well no, it takes a little over a year and there are only two options, so "disagree!"
They also mention that they had some difficulty formulating a test that respondents wanted to sit through:
It is also clear that
respondents have a limited patience in terms of the number of open-ended science knowledge
questions that they will attempt to answer before ending the interview or quitting the questionnaire.
I wish they went into more detail about how the test was administered, and who was responding to it. It seems like there may have been some respondents that simply got fed up with the test and finished it as quickly as possible.
It's also interesting to note that of the nations surveyed, the US ranked the second highest in scientific literacy, beaten only by Sweden!
Long story short: I hate when newspaper or magazine articles attempt to distill complex information down to headlines, and I really hate that in this day and age an online article does not link back to the original study that the article is about! This study not a good reason to "hate people", and although the numbers could be better, the US is actually doing a pretty good job when it comes to science literacy (comparatively speaking).
Although, more focus on science education is always a good thing.
In even more shocking news, 89% of internet posters believe any statistic if it's presented with a sufficient amount of outrage.
After a bit of confusion caused by the fact that they're sourcing Jon Miller of Michigan State University, not University of Michigan(the latter is an astrophysicist), I found their original source, that being another magazine
Didge already pointed out that the U.S. is above average in scientific literacy, but while I can't find any specific survey, they're talking about shit like the relative size of subatomic particles, the ideas behind evolution, stem cell research, and so on. I've found no place so far where the magazine in the OP got their "survey results".
Quoting myself and Didge for BotP
Still ignoring them so I can feign outrage and make myself feel good for knowing all the science 8-)
There was one similar British survey where people were asked who Winston Churchill was and some said he was an insurance salesman and various other historical weirdness
Such studies often seem to have really loaded questions and I have no idea what benefit the researchers get out of them
Edcrab on
0
Options
Lord DaveGrief CauserBitch Free ZoneRegistered Userregular
edited March 2011
I also don't disagree that astrology isn't not entirely unscientifically based
Lord Dave on
0
Options
ArtreusI'm a wizardAnd that looks fucked upRegistered Userregular
i think a lot of population problems would be solved if more people were just gay
i imagine if everybody wasn't so caught up on it, a considerable chunk would be gay
Yes, more people should choose to be gay, because that is how it works.
There was one similar British survey where people were asked who Winston Churchill was and some said he was an insurance salesman and various other historical weirdness
Such studies often seem to have really loaded questions and I have no idea what benefit the researchers get out of them
yeah
I mean, the people who conduct these studies obviously don't go into them saying "hey, we should prove to the world how many people know what a year is"
They have a list of the questions and how they were phrased in the survey. Most of them seem to be simple "do you agree or disagree with this statement" questions, which probably led to a bit of frustration and confusion for some respondents. The one about the earth taking one year to go around the sun springs to mind... well no, it takes a little over a year and there are only two options, so "disagree!"
They also mention that they had some difficulty formulating a test that respondents wanted to sit through:
It is also clear that
respondents have a limited patience in terms of the number of open-ended science knowledge
questions that they will attempt to answer before ending the interview or quitting the questionnaire.
I wish they went into more detail about how the test was administered, and who was responding to it. It seems like there may have been some respondents that simply got fed up with the test and finished it as quickly as possible.
It's also interesting to note that of the nations surveyed, the US ranked the second highest in scientific literacy, beaten only by Sweden!
Long story short: I hate when newspaper or magazine articles attempt to distill complex information down to headlines, and I really hate that in this day and age an online article does not link back to the original study that the article is about! This study not a good reason to "hate people", and although the numbers could be better, the US is actually doing a pretty good job when it comes to science literacy (comparatively speaking).
Although, more focus on science education is always a good thing.
In even more shocking news, 89% of internet posters believe any statistic if it's presented with a sufficient amount of outrage.
After a bit of confusion caused by the fact that they're sourcing Jon Miller of Michigan State University, not University of Michigan(the latter is an astrophysicist), I found their original source, that being another magazine
Didge already pointed out that the U.S. is above average in scientific literacy, but while I can't find any specific survey, they're talking about shit like the relative size of subatomic particles, the ideas behind evolution, stem cell research, and so on. I've found no place so far where the magazine in the OP got their "survey results".
Quoting myself and Didge for BotP
What if I didn't care the first time either though
God dammit. I saw that those posts were at the bottom of the page so I specifically did not read them. Why would he post them again?! I don't want to read no bottom of the page posts
There was one similar British survey where people were asked who Winston Churchill was and some said he was an insurance salesman and various other historical weirdness
Such studies often seem to have really loaded questions and I have no idea what benefit the researchers get out of them
Isn't there a dog that looks like Winston Churchill who sells insurance?
Posts
No, they usually wear Wranglers.
If we're going to be pedants, a year is quite literally "the time it takes the earth to go around the sun".
But since that definition doesn't work well with calendars, and because a year isn't exactly a consistently fixed unit of time, we normally just fudge it (365.25 for a unit of time, 365+leap days for calendars).
Thank you for saving me from having to type that.
I don't know, I think being able to communicate scientific information clearly and honestly falls under "scientific literacy". Mind you, that's probably a more stringent definition than the surveyors are applying to their sample group.
Orbits are a heck of a thing.
I want to argue that by allowing the "fudged" answer to be the only correct one we're poisoning the survey pool, but the truth is even in a perfect survey we're still far too scientifically illiterate.
tee hee
I'd hate to be a pendant
all nestled in some stranger's bosoms
shudder
PS4:MrZoompants
there are certainly worse places to be nestled
oops
:oops:
Civic Scientific Literacy in Europe and the United States
They have a list of the questions and how they were phrased in the survey. Most of them seem to be simple "do you agree or disagree with this statement" questions, which probably led to a bit of frustration and confusion for some respondents. The one about the earth taking one year to go around the sun springs to mind... well no, it takes a little over a year and there are only two options, so "disagree!"
They also mention that they had some difficulty formulating a test that respondents wanted to sit through:
I wish they went into more detail about how the test was administered, and who was responding to it. It seems like there may have been some respondents that simply got fed up with the test and finished it as quickly as possible.
It's also interesting to note that of the nations surveyed, the US ranked the second highest in scientific literacy, beaten only by Sweden!
Long story short: I hate when newspaper or magazine articles attempt to distill complex information down to headlines, and I really hate that in this day and age an online article does not link back to the original study that the article is about! This study not a good reason to "hate people", and although the numbers could be better, the US is actually doing a pretty good job when it comes to science literacy (comparatively speaking).
Although, more focus on science education is always a good thing.
Personally I would love to be a flag flown during sporting events.
it wouldn't be so bad if he didn't have a BS in clinical science
I'd tell him his BS stands for bullshit, though.
After a bit of confusion caused by the fact that they're sourcing Jon Miller of Michigan State University, not University of Michigan(the latter is an astrophysicist), I found their original source, that being another magazine
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/56517/title/Science_%2B_the_Public__Science_literacy_U.S._college_courses_really_count
Didge already pointed out that the U.S. is above average in scientific literacy, but while I can't find any specific survey, they're talking about shit like the relative size of subatomic particles, the ideas behind evolution, stem cell research, and so on. I've found no place so far where the magazine in the OP got their "survey results".
we were talking about consumption and I told him he shouldn't eat an entire bag in one day
also his failure to understand that sodium does not necessarily mean the same thing as salt
if the sodium came from sodium chloride, that means ~2.55 grams of salt
A lot of salt was what his wife turned into when she looked back
I had someone ask me the chemical symbol for fire once.
That's a direct quote.
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
Back to the fire mines plebe!
Quoting myself and Didge for BotP
I always liked the idea of acid mines
Such a extravagantly horrible concept
What if I didn't care the first time either though
and I think it's pretty funny that people get all up in a huff about Americans not being scientifically literate without even examining what they're being told
huh, I wonder how those stupid, dumb, idiotic Americans could possibly have come under the influence of misinformation
Still ignoring them so I can feign outrage and make myself feel good for knowing all the science 8-)
It should be pretty obvious that there are a ton of people in the first world who still for whatever reason just do not give a shit about science
and we should hate them
Such studies often seem to have really loaded questions and I have no idea what benefit the researchers get out of them
Yes, more people should choose to be gay, because that is how it works.
yeah
I mean, the people who conduct these studies obviously don't go into them saying "hey, we should prove to the world how many people know what a year is"
the agenda is pretty apparent
God dammit. I saw that those posts were at the bottom of the page so I specifically did not read them. Why would he post them again?! I don't want to read no bottom of the page posts
Isn't there a dog that looks like Winston Churchill who sells insurance?
This might have skewed the data