8 ms·

1 in 4 Americans Don't Know Earth Orbits the Sun. Yes, Really.

43 points by Benvie 13y ago

dubfan 13y ago
The full paper is here (link in the story is broken): http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/content/chapter-7/c07.pdf http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/content/chapter-7/c07.... To me the worst part is on page 25. Only about 30% of Americans understand scientific inquiry. I believe this is the root of the anti-science undercurrent in mainstream American society.
- kderbe 13y ago
  The table on page 23 shows the US tying or beating all other sampled countries for % correct in most of the basic science pop-quiz questions. How does this mesh with the widely-repeated statistics of US math and science education ranking 10th, 20th, or lower in the world? Is it because the answers come from the general population rather than students?
  - dubfan 13y ago
    > Is it because the answers come from the general population rather than students? I believe that is the case. Those studies you mention generally use results of standardized tests taken by students. For what it's worth I'm not convinced the methodologies used by those studies are very good.
- kungpooey 13y ago
  I speak only as someone who was raised in a somewhat alternative upbringing. I wouldn't describe it as anti-science, but perhaps more critical of science. I thought moving away from those rural areas would bring me to see things differently, but overall anything claiming to be science, especially once you get into the more controversial subjects, seems to be more corrupted than nearly any industry which could impact society half as much. There almost seems to be a religious faith in certain bodies of self-claimed scientist. Funding, the lack of sharing their findings and sources has only embraced what I once thought I would see differently. Science is anything but, and the only one I trust is myself. I will not accept summerization of findings from the current community unless it agrees with traditional though or what I can come to understand myself.
  - dubfan 13y ago
    This is exactly what I mean. Science is not a religion. It is not a faith. Calling it that betrays a lack of understanding of the scientific method. The scientific method is not perfect and there are worrisome trends in modern practices of science (see the recent story about p-values being misused) but this is the sort of thinking that leads people to believe in nonsense like psychics, dowsing, homeopathy, anti-vaccine propaganda, etc.
    - kungpooey 13y ago
      Then in regards to time and effort invested, I would say many of the very critical parties I've met are doing it right. Scientist by-and-large are doing it wrong, in my opinion. There are parties still upheld by the climate debate which still refuse to share the data and methods they used to declare their findings. I don't care which side of the fence you're on, that's bullshit and can only be evidence of manipulation.
      - actsasbuffoon 13y ago
        > can only be evidence of manipulation. That statement is a non-sequitur. It _could_ be interpreted as evidence of manipulation, but that's hardly the only possible explanation. As much as we all wish science was given all the funding it needs and scientists wouldn't have to resort to hoarding information to protect their turf, that's not the world we live in.
brandonhsiao 13y ago
Somewhat related: I've found in my general experiences that many people don't know what a scientific theory is. They think it means a guess. For example, a lot of people I've talked to think the Big Bang "Theory" is a work of fiction someone invented. I've found that among a lot of the people I talk to there's this severe, fundamental lack of understanding around how science works. Not a lack of scientific knowledge per se; just a misunderstanding of science's modus operandi.
- aortega 13y ago
  >I've found in my general experiences that many people don't know what a scientific theory is. They think it means a guess. Well they are correct.
  - Iftheshoefits 13y ago
    No, they are not even remotely close to being correct.
    - aortega 13y ago
      Why? would you say, quantum mechanics theory is a universal truth, a fact, or just a very good guess? Because general relativity is also a theory, but both theories cannot be true in our universe as they contradict. It's the same with almost any natural science theory. Theories try to be very good aproximations of the truth, until a better guess comes out.
      - judk 13y ago
        Everyone, please stop pretending you aren't intentionally assigning different meanings to the same words. Put substance in your disagreement, not wordplay.
      - Iftheshoefits 13y ago
        What you mean by "guess" isn't how any scientist would interpret "guess" in this context, and that what you call a "guess" is a rather glib and incomplete representation of all the things that comprise a "theory."
BrownBuffalo 13y ago
I have Wikipedia for this. No joke. This is kind of like the argument about students during math using a calculator. General knowledge is less of a requirement even here in NYS with the Regents system. California I'm sure is more of the same. As long as you know how to find it, that's all that matters in life.
- MichaelGG 13y ago
  Wikipedia for basic facts about the Earth? That's similar to saying you shouldn't need to learn how to add or multiply or calculate percentages because you have a calculator. (Not to mention, the real point of maths isn't calculation.)
robbiep 13y ago
This makes me so sad
eksith 13y ago
Depressing, but not unexpected. The problem isn't necessarily anti-science; it's anti-authority. Anti telling me what I can or can't believe. Anti you think your "science" can tell me what I know in my heart/what I feel in my bones? The last thing we should do is try to mash heads with this level of warm comfort and confidence in ignorance and instead ask questions to probe the depths of what they do know and why. Why do you believe this? How would that happen? People may be allergic to being told what to do and what to accept, but inviting them to wade in the waters of the scientific method may allow them to find answers themselves.
- antocv 13y ago
  You're on to something. I once met a person who was anti-anything which isnt coming from her own mind. Science? Nah, she got "power of her mind" to bend and twist metals(move objects around - only if she could just focus and use more than 10% of her brain. We got into a heated discussion about knowledge, science and philosophy, it all boiled down to "I believe whatever I want and thats the only thing that matters, no matter what you say or how things appear or whatever else". At one point I asked her how she knows that she is right about that about anything, she said she doesnt really but she chooses to believe it. And hence anything, science, philosophy, knowledge, if the rock over there really is hard and if it really is going to fall to the ground if I keep it in the air and drop it, its all a matter of belief, and if people believe it hard enough it wont necessarily always fall to the ground. How would you approach further discussion with her?
  - eksith 13y ago
    I think there was more to it than "I believe whatever I want". That's just her pride talking. Heated arguments aren't very helpful IMO. I have a good friend who still believes the Earth is 5000 years old, but the last thing I want to do is bash his head into science. That takes a long conversation over coffee (hopefully several cups) and ensuring that I don't make him feel like I'm looking down on him for what he believes. That's the worst way to convince anyone of anything, reality or not. People have a tough time separating belief from idea. Beliefs need no evidence, but ideas are testable. Find out what her ideas are and we can move on to her beliefs later (or maybe you won't even need to go that far when she realizes the fallibility of unyielding belief).
andrewflnr 13y ago
The astrology thing is possibly a matter of vocabulary. Especially in a "let's talk about science" context, it would be easy to just hear "astronomy" and say "sure, that's a science".
- vezzy-fnord 13y ago
  You'd be right about that: http://neoacademic.com/2014/02/14/nsf-report-flawed-americans-do-not-believe-astrology-is-scientific/ http://neoacademic.com/2014/02/14/nsf-report-flawed-american...
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
mercurial 13y ago
I simply refuse to believe that. The notion that a quarter of the people supposed to vote in the ruler of the most powerful nation can't wrap their head around the most basic of scientific facts is too depressing to contemplate.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  Ironically, this is probably exactly how that quarter of the population feels about the notion that the Earth orbits the sun.
- PhasmaFelis 13y ago
  Note that the USA scored better than most of the rest of the world in this and several other basic science questions. The actual result is "humans aren't well-educated"; it's being cynically spun as "Americans are stupid."
  - mercurial 13y ago
    I'm not sure that makes me much happier.
    - PhasmaFelis 13y ago
      Nor should it, but you need to understand the scope of the problem before you can address it. The original headline invites millions of people to say "haha, look at those stupid Americans, they sure are stupid" and continue ignoring the problems in their own nations. We can do better than that kind of bullshit tribalism.
      - mercurial 13y ago
        I hope we can do better in terms of education too, but yeah, look at these stupid X is a common tabloid tactic. We should be better than that.
antocv 13y ago
Who cares about these studies? I too would answer that the Earth orbits the moon if a sciency guy approached me in any kind of test and asked this question.
- GhotiFish 13y ago
  You might have to explain that one to me.
  - lutusp 13y ago
    These sorts of arguments all fail the most basic principle of relativity -- that any viewpoint is relative. One can argue that the earth orbits the moon or the reverse, but the best way to think about it is that the earth and moon orbit their common center of mass. And that common center of mass orbits the sun -- or, if you prefer, the earth/moon common center of mass and the sun' center of mass have another common center of mass, around which they mutually orbit.
omarali 13y ago
I thought it's relative to what frame of reference you choose.
- webXL 13y ago
  That was my first snarky reaction. When I jump, it must appear to my feet that the earth is trying to catch up to them!
- fahadkhan 13y ago
  Yes! I find it more alarming that people claiming to understand science "believe" that the Earth orbits the Sun.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- platz 13y ago
  relative to us, then how to explain the sun's motion? I'm having a hard time visualizing/explaining this.
- baddox 13y ago
  Technically, both objects are orbiting their barycenter, or center of mass. For the Sun and Earth, that barycenter is very near the center of the Sun, so in common parlance most people will refer to the Earth as orbiting the Sun. Perhaps asking whether "the planets" orbit the Sun would lower the chance of ambiguity.
- smnrchrds 13y ago
  As long as you choose an inertial frame of reference, it wouldn't matter. Many people forget that while velocity is relative to the observer, acceleration is not. And we all know moving along a curved path has non-zero acceleration. Imagine that you are in a vast empty dark abyss without gravity (a.k.a. the space) and all you can see is a transparent sealed container with some water in it positioned above your head. Consider these two scenarios: 1. You are rotating around the axis of your body with velocity Ω, and 2. The container has the velocity -Ω around the same axis. You might expect these two scenarios to be identical. After all, the relative velocity of two objects is similar in these cases. But only if the container is the moving body we will observe that the water is affected by centrifugal[1] force. It is obvious that earth is rotating around the sun not the other way around. You just have to consider the forces. [1] I know, I know. And you know it too.
sssbc 13y ago
So? Even if title quote is true, what percentage of the population needs to know this (to live better, work better, act in some different fashion)? 5%? 1%? less? In other words, it is knowledge of trivia for most people. Perfectly fine, if you go in for that sort of thing (and I do), but why look down your nose at those who don't? Of course, knowing the scientific method can change how you act, but so can understanding lots of things. Finite time and attention. Or be a hater.
sonar_un 13y ago
The EU was even worse at 66% of those surveyed got the answer correct.
- billyjobob 13y ago
  The EU now includes a large number of ex-USSR countries and is not what most people think of when they think 'Europe'.
judk 13y ago
1 in 4 Americans don't know a piece of technical trivia that has zero relevance to their lives, and is equivalent to their model on all ways that matter to them.
- baddox 13y ago
  I found it bizarre that the author suggested that the heliocentric model and the spheroidness of Earth are the two most basic scientific facts.
RivieraKid 13y ago
Sherlock Holmes didn't either and he was a rockstar detective.
pessimizer 13y ago
You mean the 6000 year old earth borne through the ether by angels? http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four-Americans-Believe-Strict-Creationism.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four-Americans-Believe-Str... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/23/believing-in-angels_n_1167100.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/23/believing-in-angels...
jsdalton 13y ago
While true, the actual data presents a different picture: http://i.imgur.com/FXMlOZB.png http://i.imgur.com/FXMlOZB.png [source: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/content/chapter-7/c07.pdf http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/content/chapter-7/c07....] So actually, the U.S. had the second highest score on that question, behind South Korea. Furthermore, the U.S. consistently performed on par or higher vs. the other countries/regions for the remaining questions. The real outlier for the U.S. on this survey was the question about evolution -- only 48% of Americans got that right, significantly behind the rest of the pack.
- lbrandy 13y ago
  Another fun fact: Europeans were more likely to answer correctly about evolution than the earth going round the sun.
- pyrrhotech 13y ago
  That's obviously because a lot of people have religious beliefs that make more sense to them than evolution. It's not that they haven't heard of evolution, but that they reject it for the simpler theory found in their 3000 year old book.
  - ballard 13y ago
    Something like 95% of the entire human population believes in something supernatural. And also, what other nonsense do they believe?
  - MichaelGG 13y ago
    IME, that's because most people haven't ever heard any reasonable explanation of evolution. They honestly believe that evolution is just "random things happened and fish decided to walk on land". That "animals wanted to see so they randomly got eyes". Given that explanation of evolution of course they're going to reject it - that explanation is nonsense. Creation is only simpler if you exclude the axiom of having some omnipotent creator in the first place.
    - 13y ago
dgant 13y ago
Here's a different way of looking a the data, on page 23 of http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/content/chapter-7/c07.pdf http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/content/chapter-7/c07.... Americans know about as much as people in similarly developed countries. Really. Compare to the success rates versus South Korea and Japan. And then compare it to less economically developed parts of the world. Americans were the most correct among the surveyed populations about radiation, antibiotics, atomic structure, and lasers. The takeaway shouldn't be "Americans are ignorant" but really that "Education is hard" and "Poverty inhibits education"
triangleman 13y ago
Also interesting, only 32 percent of Indians answered "true" to the statement "The continents have been moving their location for millions of years and will continue to move" whereas 83 percent of Americans answered this question correctly.
waps 13y ago
In other news : 3 in 4 hacker news readers don't know the earth doesn't orbit the sun at all. That is an impression created by the fact that the space around the sun moves as a result of gravity. This results in that the location of the earth doesn't change, but as the sun is sucking in space and constantly pushing out it's matter the distance doesn't change. This results in the fact that a straight line path around the sun at the relative speed difference that the earth the sun have, and then transpose said trajectory into an approximate euclidean space with the sun as it's point of origin results in a (roughly) ellipsoid trajectory. But make no mistake : the earth is standing still, it's not moving. There is no actual movement of either the earth, or the sun, or for that matter, any other planet or body, as a result of gravity. The earth is not circling the sun, it is moving in a straight line through what just happens to be non-euclidean space. Hell there is no gravity acting on the earth, nor for that matter on you (on the contrary : you are being accelerated upward, not downward at roughly the rate at which the earth sucks up space). (Here movement is defined as the only viable relativistic definition of movement : a movement that can be observed to be different from standing still, meaning travelling at a fixed speed in a straight line is not moving at all) If the earth ever starts orbiting the sun, life on earth will become impossible in a matter of minutes, as the resulting acceleration would affect magma flow and would very quickly change the entire surface of the earth into a liquid state. In that case the earth's surface would quickly change to the average temperature of the earth itself : ~6000 degrees celcius. People say that the earth is orbiting the sun, because people are thinking within an euclidean reference frame. If you ignore the fact that we live in a relativistic universe and just act as if it's euclidean, it looks like the earth is orbiting. But in (what we think) is the real structure of the universe, that's not the case at all. Saying that the earth orbits the sun, or God forbid, that it circles the sun, are flat-out wrong statements. The last time scientists actually believed that was about 1931. The "science" that is being popularized is either old, or just flat-out wrong. This goes for other popular versions of scientific theories as well. If evolution is "mutate + natural selection + goto 1", then humans don't evolve at all, and neither does any larger lifeform (and it's still an open question if bacteria evolve or not). Hell, did you know the earth is the exact center of the universe ? No joke. Read a bit about Hubble's discovery. The big bang is not actually the beginning of time, google inflation theory (and even inflation theory doesn't model the beginning of time). Did you know that we lost ~98% (that's a lower bound) of all mass in the universe ? We have zero clue where the rest of the universe is.
rayiner 13y ago
The question as it's worded is: "does the earth go around the sun or does the sun go around the earth?" There's all sorts of reasons someone might get that question wrong. The way it's framed makes you visualize two systems and pick the right one, and people might have a problem with that. The phrasing depends on word order being significant in English in ways that might be confusing to foreign language speakers (of which the U.S. has many). Heck, just parsing it took me enough time that someone rushing through the survey might just not think about it too carefully before answering. I bet if you showed two pictures, with a large sun orbiting the earth and one with a small earth orbiting a large sun, you'd get a much higher percentage right.
baddox 13y ago
I'm not sure how you would setup the study, but has there ever been a study to see what percentage of people will respond to a survey like this incorrectly even if they know the correct answer, either due to a mistake, or general disinterest, or confusion over the question? Especially for the last possibility, I think reading comprehension could be a big culprit here.
jusben1369 13y ago
Everybody thinks the general population should be more knowledgeable about the particular topic they love. "Everyone should learn how to code!" "I can't believe people are so apathetic about how laws are made!" "Most people don't understand basic finance; how can they buy a home and save for retirement properly!"
alphydan 13y ago
I had a fascinating discussion with an ex trucker in Spain (who after an injury worked selling souvenirs in the old windmills where Don Quijote had once jousted according to Cervantes' book). When he heard I was a physicist, he apologized in advance for being such a tool ... and then admitted that he thought the earth rotating around the sun was a mistake. He saw the sunrise every morning, always in the East, move around ... and then set in the West. Plus, wouldn't we feel the speed, or even disintegrate if we travelled so fast around the sun? It was the first time I had encountered somebody who didn't think heliocentrism was possible, let alone other cosmological models. I paused before answering ... but then realized the man was right. What evidence did he have that contradicted a sun rotating around the sun? He only studied until age 12. He never had a Foucault pendulum. And even if he had had one, the fixed stars idea and the earth's rotation is not the only interpretation. I asked ... what about the astronauts who have been up there? Surely they must have seen the earth rotating. He was unconvinced. Things seem to rotate when you are very high as a result of vertigo. Could that be the explanation? What about the great speed of the earth he insisted? Wouldn't we feel that? [nobody had ever explained that to him, including his son who was an engineer] I realized that this man was much more of a scientist than his peers who blindly believe what they are told in school: "the earth rotates around the sun". But ask them a deeper question: What is the evidence? Could the evidence be interpreted otherwise? Are we fooling ourselves (as is very common in science)? Of course the answer to these questions is child's play for most technical people. There is a ton of evidence. But are the 3/4s aware of it? or do they just parrot the accepted wisdom. The man turned out to be very smart, having learned the names of all his souvenirs in Korean, Japanese, German, French ... and having strong opinions about the dogmatism that religion blindly accepts. So it's possible that in that 20% of "non believers" there are true scientists (or Quixotes!) who refuse to believe what they are told before seeing credible experimental evidence that they can reason deeply about.

43 points by Benvie 13y ago

The full paper is here (link in the story is broken): http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/content/chapter-7/c07.pdf http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/content/chapter-7/c07.... To me the worst part is on page 25. Only about 30% of Americans understand scientific inquiry. I believe this is the root of the anti-science undercurrent in mainstream American society.

kderbe 13y ago
The table on page 23 shows the US tying or beating all other sampled countries for % correct in most of the basic science pop-quiz questions. How does this mesh with the widely-repeated statistics of US math and science education ranking 10th, 20th, or lower in the world? Is it because the answers come from the general population rather than students?
- dubfan 13y ago
  > Is it because the answers come from the general population rather than students? I believe that is the case. Those studies you mention generally use results of standardized tests taken by students. For what it's worth I'm not convinced the methodologies used by those studies are very good.
kungpooey 13y ago
I speak only as someone who was raised in a somewhat alternative upbringing. I wouldn't describe it as anti-science, but perhaps more critical of science. I thought moving away from those rural areas would bring me to see things differently, but overall anything claiming to be science, especially once you get into the more controversial subjects, seems to be more corrupted than nearly any industry which could impact society half as much. There almost seems to be a religious faith in certain bodies of self-claimed scientist. Funding, the lack of sharing their findings and sources has only embraced what I once thought I would see differently. Science is anything but, and the only one I trust is myself. I will not accept summerization of findings from the current community unless it agrees with traditional though or what I can come to understand myself.
- dubfan 13y ago
  This is exactly what I mean. Science is not a religion. It is not a faith. Calling it that betrays a lack of understanding of the scientific method. The scientific method is not perfect and there are worrisome trends in modern practices of science (see the recent story about p-values being misused) but this is the sort of thinking that leads people to believe in nonsense like psychics, dowsing, homeopathy, anti-vaccine propaganda, etc.
  - kungpooey 13y ago
    Then in regards to time and effort invested, I would say many of the very critical parties I've met are doing it right. Scientist by-and-large are doing it wrong, in my opinion. There are parties still upheld by the climate debate which still refuse to share the data and methods they used to declare their findings. I don't care which side of the fence you're on, that's bullshit and can only be evidence of manipulation.
    - actsasbuffoon 13y ago
      > can only be evidence of manipulation. That statement is a non-sequitur. It _could_ be interpreted as evidence of manipulation, but that's hardly the only possible explanation. As much as we all wish science was given all the funding it needs and scientists wouldn't have to resort to hoarding information to protect their turf, that's not the world we live in.

brandonhsiao 13y ago

Somewhat related: I've found in my general experiences that many people don't know what a scientific theory is. They think it means a guess. For example, a lot of people I've talked to think the Big Bang "Theory" is a work of fiction someone invented. I've found that among a lot of the people I talk to there's this severe, fundamental lack of understanding around how science works. Not a lack of scientific knowledge per se; just a misunderstanding of science's modus operandi.

aortega 13y ago
>I've found in my general experiences that many people don't know what a scientific theory is. They think it means a guess. Well they are correct.
- Iftheshoefits 13y ago
  No, they are not even remotely close to being correct.
  - aortega 13y ago
    Why? would you say, quantum mechanics theory is a universal truth, a fact, or just a very good guess? Because general relativity is also a theory, but both theories cannot be true in our universe as they contradict. It's the same with almost any natural science theory. Theories try to be very good aproximations of the truth, until a better guess comes out.
    - judk 13y ago
      Everyone, please stop pretending you aren't intentionally assigning different meanings to the same words. Put substance in your disagreement, not wordplay.
    - Iftheshoefits 13y ago
      What you mean by "guess" isn't how any scientist would interpret "guess" in this context, and that what you call a "guess" is a rather glib and incomplete representation of all the things that comprise a "theory."

BrownBuffalo 13y ago

I have Wikipedia for this. No joke. This is kind of like the argument about students during math using a calculator. General knowledge is less of a requirement even here in NYS with the Regents system. California I'm sure is more of the same. As long as you know how to find it, that's all that matters in life.

MichaelGG 13y ago
Wikipedia for basic facts about the Earth? That's similar to saying you shouldn't need to learn how to add or multiply or calculate percentages because you have a calculator. (Not to mention, the real point of maths isn't calculation.)

robbiep 13y ago

This makes me so sad

eksith 13y ago

Depressing, but not unexpected. The problem isn't necessarily anti-science; it's anti-authority. Anti telling me what I can or can't believe. Anti you think your "science" can tell me what I know in my heart/what I feel in my bones? The last thing we should do is try to mash heads with this level of warm comfort and confidence in ignorance and instead ask questions to probe the depths of what they do know and why. Why do you believe this? How would that happen? People may be allergic to being told what to do and what to accept, but inviting them to wade in the waters of the scientific method may allow them to find answers themselves.

antocv 13y ago
You're on to something. I once met a person who was anti-anything which isnt coming from her own mind. Science? Nah, she got "power of her mind" to bend and twist metals(move objects around - only if she could just focus and use more than 10% of her brain. We got into a heated discussion about knowledge, science and philosophy, it all boiled down to "I believe whatever I want and thats the only thing that matters, no matter what you say or how things appear or whatever else". At one point I asked her how she knows that she is right about that about anything, she said she doesnt really but she chooses to believe it. And hence anything, science, philosophy, knowledge, if the rock over there really is hard and if it really is going to fall to the ground if I keep it in the air and drop it, its all a matter of belief, and if people believe it hard enough it wont necessarily always fall to the ground. How would you approach further discussion with her?
- eksith 13y ago
  I think there was more to it than "I believe whatever I want". That's just her pride talking. Heated arguments aren't very helpful IMO. I have a good friend who still believes the Earth is 5000 years old, but the last thing I want to do is bash his head into science. That takes a long conversation over coffee (hopefully several cups) and ensuring that I don't make him feel like I'm looking down on him for what he believes. That's the worst way to convince anyone of anything, reality or not. People have a tough time separating belief from idea. Beliefs need no evidence, but ideas are testable. Find out what her ideas are and we can move on to her beliefs later (or maybe you won't even need to go that far when she realizes the fallibility of unyielding belief).

andrewflnr 13y ago

The astrology thing is possibly a matter of vocabulary. Especially in a "let's talk about science" context, it would be easy to just hear "astronomy" and say "sure, that's a science".

vezzy-fnord 13y ago
You'd be right about that: http://neoacademic.com/2014/02/14/nsf-report-flawed-americans-do-not-believe-astrology-is-scientific/ http://neoacademic.com/2014/02/14/nsf-report-flawed-american...
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

mercurial 13y ago

I simply refuse to believe that. The notion that a quarter of the people supposed to vote in the ruler of the most powerful nation can't wrap their head around the most basic of scientific facts is too depressing to contemplate.

sliverstorm 13y ago
Ironically, this is probably exactly how that quarter of the population feels about the notion that the Earth orbits the sun.
PhasmaFelis 13y ago
Note that the USA scored better than most of the rest of the world in this and several other basic science questions. The actual result is "humans aren't well-educated"; it's being cynically spun as "Americans are stupid."
- mercurial 13y ago
  I'm not sure that makes me much happier.
  - PhasmaFelis 13y ago
    Nor should it, but you need to understand the scope of the problem before you can address it. The original headline invites millions of people to say "haha, look at those stupid Americans, they sure are stupid" and continue ignoring the problems in their own nations. We can do better than that kind of bullshit tribalism.
    - mercurial 13y ago
      I hope we can do better in terms of education too, but yeah, look at these stupid X is a common tabloid tactic. We should be better than that.

antocv 13y ago

Who cares about these studies? I too would answer that the Earth orbits the moon if a sciency guy approached me in any kind of test and asked this question.

GhotiFish 13y ago
You might have to explain that one to me.
- lutusp 13y ago
  These sorts of arguments all fail the most basic principle of relativity -- that any viewpoint is relative. One can argue that the earth orbits the moon or the reverse, but the best way to think about it is that the earth and moon orbit their common center of mass. And that common center of mass orbits the sun -- or, if you prefer, the earth/moon common center of mass and the sun' center of mass have another common center of mass, around which they mutually orbit.

omarali 13y ago

I thought it's relative to what frame of reference you choose.

webXL 13y ago
That was my first snarky reaction. When I jump, it must appear to my feet that the earth is trying to catch up to them!
fahadkhan 13y ago
Yes! I find it more alarming that people claiming to understand science "believe" that the Earth orbits the Sun.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
platz 13y ago
relative to us, then how to explain the sun's motion? I'm having a hard time visualizing/explaining this.
baddox 13y ago
Technically, both objects are orbiting their barycenter, or center of mass. For the Sun and Earth, that barycenter is very near the center of the Sun, so in common parlance most people will refer to the Earth as orbiting the Sun. Perhaps asking whether "the planets" orbit the Sun would lower the chance of ambiguity.
smnrchrds 13y ago
As long as you choose an inertial frame of reference, it wouldn't matter. Many people forget that while velocity is relative to the observer, acceleration is not. And we all know moving along a curved path has non-zero acceleration. Imagine that you are in a vast empty dark abyss without gravity (a.k.a. the space) and all you can see is a transparent sealed container with some water in it positioned above your head. Consider these two scenarios: 1. You are rotating around the axis of your body with velocity Ω, and 2. The container has the velocity -Ω around the same axis. You might expect these two scenarios to be identical. After all, the relative velocity of two objects is similar in these cases. But only if the container is the moving body we will observe that the water is affected by centrifugal[1] force. It is obvious that earth is rotating around the sun not the other way around. You just have to consider the forces. [1] I know, I know. And you know it too.

sssbc 13y ago

So? Even if title quote is true, what percentage of the population needs to know this (to live better, work better, act in some different fashion)? 5%? 1%? less? In other words, it is knowledge of trivia for most people. Perfectly fine, if you go in for that sort of thing (and I do), but why look down your nose at those who don't? Of course, knowing the scientific method can change how you act, but so can understanding lots of things. Finite time and attention. Or be a hater.

sonar_un 13y ago

The EU was even worse at 66% of those surveyed got the answer correct.

billyjobob 13y ago
The EU now includes a large number of ex-USSR countries and is not what most people think of when they think 'Europe'.

judk 13y ago

1 in 4 Americans don't know a piece of technical trivia that has zero relevance to their lives, and is equivalent to their model on all ways that matter to them.

baddox 13y ago
I found it bizarre that the author suggested that the heliocentric model and the spheroidness of Earth are the two most basic scientific facts.

RivieraKid 13y ago

Sherlock Holmes didn't either and he was a rockstar detective.

pessimizer 13y ago

You mean the 6000 year old earth borne through the ether by angels? http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four-Americans-Believe-Strict-Creationism.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four-Americans-Believe-Str... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/23/believing-in-angels_n_1167100.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/23/believing-in-angels...

jsdalton 13y ago

While true, the actual data presents a different picture: http://i.imgur.com/FXMlOZB.png http://i.imgur.com/FXMlOZB.png [source: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/content/chapter-7/c07.pdf http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/content/chapter-7/c07....] So actually, the U.S. had the second highest score on that question, behind South Korea. Furthermore, the U.S. consistently performed on par or higher vs. the other countries/regions for the remaining questions. The real outlier for the U.S. on this survey was the question about evolution -- only 48% of Americans got that right, significantly behind the rest of the pack.

lbrandy 13y ago
Another fun fact: Europeans were more likely to answer correctly about evolution than the earth going round the sun.
pyrrhotech 13y ago
That's obviously because a lot of people have religious beliefs that make more sense to them than evolution. It's not that they haven't heard of evolution, but that they reject it for the simpler theory found in their 3000 year old book.
- ballard 13y ago
  Something like 95% of the entire human population believes in something supernatural. And also, what other nonsense do they believe?
- MichaelGG 13y ago
  IME, that's because most people haven't ever heard any reasonable explanation of evolution. They honestly believe that evolution is just "random things happened and fish decided to walk on land". That "animals wanted to see so they randomly got eyes". Given that explanation of evolution of course they're going to reject it - that explanation is nonsense. Creation is only simpler if you exclude the axiom of having some omnipotent creator in the first place.
  - 13y ago

dgant 13y ago

Here's a different way of looking a the data, on page 23 of http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/content/chapter-7/c07.pdf http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/content/chapter-7/c07.... Americans know about as much as people in similarly developed countries. Really. Compare to the success rates versus South Korea and Japan. And then compare it to less economically developed parts of the world. Americans were the most correct among the surveyed populations about radiation, antibiotics, atomic structure, and lasers. The takeaway shouldn't be "Americans are ignorant" but really that "Education is hard" and "Poverty inhibits education"

triangleman 13y ago

Also interesting, only 32 percent of Indians answered "true" to the statement "The continents have been moving their location for millions of years and will continue to move" whereas 83 percent of Americans answered this question correctly.

waps 13y ago

In other news : 3 in 4 hacker news readers don't know the earth doesn't orbit the sun at all. That is an impression created by the fact that the space around the sun moves as a result of gravity. This results in that the location of the earth doesn't change, but as the sun is sucking in space and constantly pushing out it's matter the distance doesn't change. This results in the fact that a straight line path around the sun at the relative speed difference that the earth the sun have, and then transpose said trajectory into an approximate euclidean space with the sun as it's point of origin results in a (roughly) ellipsoid trajectory. But make no mistake : the earth is standing still, it's not moving. There is no actual movement of either the earth, or the sun, or for that matter, any other planet or body, as a result of gravity. The earth is not circling the sun, it is moving in a straight line through what just happens to be non-euclidean space. Hell there is no gravity acting on the earth, nor for that matter on you (on the contrary : you are being accelerated upward, not downward at roughly the rate at which the earth sucks up space). (Here movement is defined as the only viable relativistic definition of movement : a movement that can be observed to be different from standing still, meaning travelling at a fixed speed in a straight line is not moving at all) If the earth ever starts orbiting the sun, life on earth will become impossible in a matter of minutes, as the resulting acceleration would affect magma flow and would very quickly change the entire surface of the earth into a liquid state. In that case the earth's surface would quickly change to the average temperature of the earth itself : ~6000 degrees celcius. People say that the earth is orbiting the sun, because people are thinking within an euclidean reference frame. If you ignore the fact that we live in a relativistic universe and just act as if it's euclidean, it looks like the earth is orbiting. But in (what we think) is the real structure of the universe, that's not the case at all. Saying that the earth orbits the sun, or God forbid, that it circles the sun, are flat-out wrong statements. The last time scientists actually believed that was about 1931. The "science" that is being popularized is either old, or just flat-out wrong. This goes for other popular versions of scientific theories as well. If evolution is "mutate + natural selection + goto 1", then humans don't evolve at all, and neither does any larger lifeform (and it's still an open question if bacteria evolve or not). Hell, did you know the earth is the exact center of the universe ? No joke. Read a bit about Hubble's discovery. The big bang is not actually the beginning of time, google inflation theory (and even inflation theory doesn't model the beginning of time). Did you know that we lost ~98% (that's a lower bound) of all mass in the universe ? We have zero clue where the rest of the universe is.

rayiner 13y ago

The question as it's worded is: "does the earth go around the sun or does the sun go around the earth?" There's all sorts of reasons someone might get that question wrong. The way it's framed makes you visualize two systems and pick the right one, and people might have a problem with that. The phrasing depends on word order being significant in English in ways that might be confusing to foreign language speakers (of which the U.S. has many). Heck, just parsing it took me enough time that someone rushing through the survey might just not think about it too carefully before answering. I bet if you showed two pictures, with a large sun orbiting the earth and one with a small earth orbiting a large sun, you'd get a much higher percentage right.

baddox 13y ago

I'm not sure how you would setup the study, but has there ever been a study to see what percentage of people will respond to a survey like this incorrectly even if they know the correct answer, either due to a mistake, or general disinterest, or confusion over the question? Especially for the last possibility, I think reading comprehension could be a big culprit here.

jusben1369 13y ago

Everybody thinks the general population should be more knowledgeable about the particular topic they love. "Everyone should learn how to code!" "I can't believe people are so apathetic about how laws are made!" "Most people don't understand basic finance; how can they buy a home and save for retirement properly!"

alphydan 13y ago

I had a fascinating discussion with an ex trucker in Spain (who after an injury worked selling souvenirs in the old windmills where Don Quijote had once jousted according to Cervantes' book). When he heard I was a physicist, he apologized in advance for being such a tool ... and then admitted that he thought the earth rotating around the sun was a mistake. He saw the sunrise every morning, always in the East, move around ... and then set in the West. Plus, wouldn't we feel the speed, or even disintegrate if we travelled so fast around the sun? It was the first time I had encountered somebody who didn't think heliocentrism was possible, let alone other cosmological models. I paused before answering ... but then realized the man was right. What evidence did he have that contradicted a sun rotating around the sun? He only studied until age 12. He never had a Foucault pendulum. And even if he had had one, the fixed stars idea and the earth's rotation is not the only interpretation. I asked ... what about the astronauts who have been up there? Surely they must have seen the earth rotating. He was unconvinced. Things seem to rotate when you are very high as a result of vertigo. Could that be the explanation? What about the great speed of the earth he insisted? Wouldn't we feel that? [nobody had ever explained that to him, including his son who was an engineer] I realized that this man was much more of a scientist than his peers who blindly believe what they are told in school: "the earth rotates around the sun". But ask them a deeper question: What is the evidence? Could the evidence be interpreted otherwise? Are we fooling ourselves (as is very common in science)? Of course the answer to these questions is child's play for most technical people. There is a ton of evidence. But are the 3/4s aware of it? or do they just parrot the accepted wisdom. The man turned out to be very smart, having learned the names of all his souvenirs in Korean, Japanese, German, French ... and having strong opinions about the dogmatism that religion blindly accepts. So it's possible that in that 20% of "non believers" there are true scientists (or Quixotes!) who refuse to believe what they are told before seeing credible experimental evidence that they can reason deeply about.