Science literacy: how confident are you?

[ferrelhadley]

Edited to remove personal information.
Once again personal abuse at the slightest provocation, its just not worth allowing that kind of person any personal info.

 

[Orang Utan]

It isn’t, but I understand the confusion.

I’m just gonna carry on regardless and keep calling it all maths

 

[danny la rouge]

I’m just gonna carry on regardless and keep calling it all maths

As is your right. I like the distinction, being poor at arithmetic.

 

[Orang Utan]

As is your right. I like the distinction, being poor at arithmetic.

I’m still uncertain about the difference, but that’s fine. Maths sounds better than number science

 

[kabbes]

View attachment 256687

That’s doesn’t work so well when you’re in seventeen complex dimensions.

 

[SpookyFrank]

That’s doesn’t work so well when you’re in seventeen complex dimensions.

I'm not, fortunately.

 

[kabbes]

But did you hear about the double hand and full face transplant that happened last week though?
There’s that saying isn’t there, any mechanism you’re sufficiently ignorant of may as well be magic and is perceived as such, for me that’s far too many things.

The kabbess is — as we speak — working on an assignment that she complained this morning is “complicated”. When I enquired further, it turns out that it’s about selectively editing the element of the genetic code an HIV virus has inserted itself into within a human cell, to isolate and neutralise it sufficiently ruthlessly that it has no chance to escape or mutate, thus allowing us to cure HIV. I think this is the kind of magic you may be referring to.

I told her that of course it’s complicated and I would be very disappointed to discover otherwise.

 

[Mation]

I have almost no bearings by which to judge the impact or importance of sciencey news, I just sort of stare blankly and feel small in the face of it all. I googled what actually is a vaccine just last week.

But did you hear about the double hand and full face transplant that happened last week though?
There’s that saying isn’t there, any mechanism you’re sufficiently ignorant of may as well be magic and is perceived as such, for me that’s far too many things.

I don't know how they manage that stuff either.

But it seems good to me that you read a thing and then googled to find out more. Curiosity + multiple sources gets you a long way, ime.

 

[dessiato]

I did A level Chemistry, Biology, Physics, and French. Did applied chemistry and became an industrialist chemist for a few years. Because where I lived chemistry, as an industry, was dying I left. Mrs Dess was a microbiologist for about twenty years.

She loves sci-fi and can easily suspend her scientific understanding. I don't, I can't.

 

[Mation]

I did A level Chemistry, Biology, Physics, and French. Did applied chemistry and became an industrialist chemist for a few years. Because where I lived chemistry, as an industry, was dying I left. Mrs Dess was a microbiologist for about twenty years.

She loves sci-fi and can easily suspend her scientific understanding. I don't, I can't.

Why do you have to suspend your scientific understanding? I mean, obviously for some stuff that just has implausible devices without explanation, e.g. replicators. (Although that's probably a bad example, given 3D printers.) But what about hard science fiction?

 

[SpookyFrank]

Why do you have to suspend your scientific understanding? I mean, obviously for some stuff that just has implausible devices without explanation, e.g. replicators. (Although that's probably a bad example, given 3D printers.) But what about hard science fiction?

My speciality is genetics. Even 'hard' sci fi is usually pretty soft on that.

 

[dessiato]

Why do you have to suspend your scientific understanding? I mean, obviously for some stuff that just has implausible devices without explanation, e.g. replicators. (Although that's probably a bad example, given 3D printers.) But what about hard science fiction?

I just don't get it. It seems so false, and, frankly, I find it boring. I prefer romantic tragedies, which probably says a lot about me.

 

[kabbes]

All fiction is unrealistic but not half so unrealistic as real life.

 

[gentlegreen]

O level physics and chem in 1976, I didn't learn about DNA and the basic planks of evolutionary theory until OU S101 in 1987 - and it clicked a bit because I'd just grasped the basics of Z80 machine code by soldering things to bolt to my ZX81 - plus I was shaking off the last of any "spiritual" wonderings ... the GWs helped with that by turning up right then and giving me a silly book and even bringing around their "evolution expert" at which point I'd had enough and shut the door on them...

Around 2010 I encountered the creationism freak show on youtube and thought it was about time I got a handle on geological time...
Then the anti-GM nonsense drove me to learn more - and being a bit of a gardener and plant-spotter helped there and of course progress in DNA tech has made huge changes to things.. coincidentally I started working around life scientists rather than linguists so I paid it more thought.

The 5G and anti-microwave cooking nonsense winds me up massively as someone with a ham radio license..

A brush with diabetes in 2019 made me learn a teeny bit about things but I'm very squeamish... Lately I got very cross with all the anti-science woo in nutrition and not just from the keto/paleo crowd...

Covid is quite motivating and I've learned a few things -trying to find something positive in something horrific...

Horrendous weakness in maths and laziness meant I could never be a scientist, but I consider myself an "informed citizen".

I'm about to cancel my netflix because watching ST TNG and Voyager is mostly too cringy now.
(Multiple E=MC2 fails and "oxygen-argon atmosphere" on a planet covered with green plants)

 

[NoXion]

Didn't complete any of my GCSEs in secondary, science or otherwise. I got an E in Astronomy from a college in Llandudno, mainly because I absolutely suck at doing coursework. More recently I completed (and more importantly, passed) two short courses via the Open University, one of them focusing on cosmology and particle physics, the other focused on planetary science. I passed them both, despite the maths making me sweat, so I feel like I could do longer courses if I could get the funding sorted.

Despite my scholastic shortcomings, I have maintained a strongly burning interest in science since childhood, and I've read a lot of physics and space science stuff. Some of it I've even managed to commit to memory! I like to think that I've done enough reading to develop a good nose for sniffing out bullshit, although I suspect that this is largely because most woo and pseudoscience is aimed at people who don't really like reading.

 

[spanglechick]

It’s never occurred to me before that enjoyment or not of Sci-fi has any relationship with understanding science. Sci fi always strikes me as a joyless, overwhelmingly masculine genre where people live spartan existences in boiler suits. Often on spaceships or in bleak dystopian futures. All that leaves me entirely cold, but I like science reality, in a casually-informed way.

I did chemistry and physics GCSEs, though somehow managed to get a D in chemistry (I wasn’t that bad at it in class, but there were a lot of questions about moles (mols?) and I had daydreamed through that lesson, and took a calculated risk that I wouldn’t struggle too badly if I didn’t find out how to calculate them. Anyway, the science I learned at school was... ok. I remember a lot of time drawing force diagrams in physics, we did experiments most weeks in chemistry. Biology was less interesting, which is why I dropped it. Cell diagrams seemed to figure large. In fact most of the detail of what I remember of science lessons was drawing diagrams. But it did give me a solid grasp of key principles and concepts.

As an adult I do pay attention to science in the news, and when I come across a concept I dont understand, I suppose I do enough reading until I feel confident discussing it on a layman’s level. I find most pop-science stuff very entertaining (I binged all eight million episodes of Mythbusters last year, and got very excited by the physics and engineering stuff that makes up most of that show). I still don’t give a toss about space travel though. It’s cold and spartan. And there’s a lot of boiler suits.

 

[NoXion]

Sci fi always strikes me as a joyless, overwhelmingly masculine genre where people live spartan existences in boiler suits. Often on spaceships or in bleak dystopian futures.

lol, there are entire sub-genres of science fiction that are nothing like this. Planetary romance, feminist SF, and anthropological SF among others. I will grant that dystopias are popular in SF, but I think this is because they're a rich seam of narrative conflict, whereas a utopia is a really boring place to read about in a story, unless it's threatened by some outside force or internal subversion.

The "masculine" charge is particularly ironic in light of both Mary Shelley's contribution to the founding of SF as a distinct genre of literature, as well as the excellent works subsequently produced by award-winning writers such as Ursula K Le Guin, Anne McCaffrey, Andre Norton and Joan D. Vinge among others.

 

[Doodler]

Me - I've always loved science fiction and have been engaged with weird and wonderful discoveries. However, I wouldn't have been able to evaluate what any potential problems might be with stuff I read in the press before I'd done some extensive, official study.

How well do you think the science education you had has served you? What and how have you learned stuff since school?

What do you do to judge how seriously you should take science news that might affect you or people or things you care about?

Would anything make it easier?

(I'm not currently doing sci-comms, but my English course learners seem to love it when I mention anything sciency, whilst also having a load of flat-earth/conspiracy-type beliefs. I know you lot don't have those latter, but I'd like to understand it better and am fishing for anything that helps.)

School education probably didnt equip me at all well. But my dad was an electrical engineer and from him I got the notion that science was a Good Thing. I also loved science fiction as a kid.

In adulthood I went to night school and learned something about statistics and experimental design. That has helped me think critically about science studies reported in the media.

The main limits to my understanding of science are having generally rudimentary maths skills and being reasonably but not highly intelligent. (I've met highly intelligent people and they do things like impatiently finish my sentences for me.)

So I have an interest in science, am drawn to its imaginative potential but have nothing to contribute - a spectator.

 

[gentlegreen]

Coincidentally I fell asleep with earphones on listening to Vincent Racaniello's virology 1 through 4 and it gave me weird dreams about vaguely familiar people talking incessantly about virology
But still nothing much stuck - it's an immensely complex subject - I can't believe undergrads manage to store all that even during each lesson ...

 

[SpookyFrank]

It’s never occurred to me before that enjoyment or not of Sci-fi has any relationship with understanding science. Sci fi always strikes me as a joyless, overwhelmingly masculine genre where people live spartan existences in boiler suits. Often on spaceships or in bleak dystopian futures. All that leaves me entirely cold, but I like science reality, in a casually-informed way.

As NoXion says, get yourself some Ursula Le Guin.

 

[spanglechick]

lol, there are entire sub-genres of science fiction that are nothing like this. Planetary romance, feminist SF, and anthropological SF among others. I will grant that dystopias are popular in SF, but I think this is because they're a rich seam of narrative conflict, whereas a utopia is a really boring place to read about in a story, unless it's threatened by some outside force or internal subversion.

The "masculine" charge is particularly ironic in light of both Mary Shelley's contribution to the founding of SF as a distinct genre of literature, as well as the excellent works subsequently produced by award-winning writers such as Ursula K Le Guin, Anne McCaffrey, Andre Norton and Joan D. Vinge among others.

As NoXion says, get yourself some Ursula Le Guin.

I’ll take it under advisement. But if it’s all kabooms and boiler suits I’ll be dreadfully bored.

I’ve thought of something that I like that’s a type of Sci-fi. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. I love that film. And some of Black Mirror counts, I suppose. And I have had my moments with Doctor Who.

 

[Pickman's model]

I’ll take it under advisement. But if it’s all kabooms and boiler suits I’ll be dreadfully bored.

I’ve thought of something that I like that’s a type of Sci-fi. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. I love that film. And some of Black Mirror counts, I suppose. And I have had my moments with Doctor Who.

you might enjoy ursula k leguin

 

[gentlegreen]

"The Trouble with Lichen" ?

 

[Orang Utan]

I’ll take it under advisement. But if it’s all kabooms and boiler suits I’ll be dreadfully bored.

I’ve thought of something that I like that’s a type of Sci-fi. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. I love that film. And some of Black Mirror counts, I suppose. And I have had my moments with Doctor Who.

I prescribe Octavia Butler’s Kindred. No boiler suits, no spaceships, no kabooms

 

[NoXion]

I’ll take it under advisement. But if it’s all kabooms and boiler suits I’ll be dreadfully bored.

I’ve thought of something that I like that’s a type of Sci-fi. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. I love that film. And some of Black Mirror counts, I suppose. And I have had my moments with Doctor Who.

I've only seen the first two series before it got really big in the US, but I think that Black Mirror has got be some of the most seriously bleak science fiction I've seen. It doesn't have any rocket ships nor steely-eyed, lantern-jawed men in boiler suits who patronise the viewer with Heinlein-style moralising, but watch episodes like "15 Million Merits" and tell me that the world portrayed within isn't utterly dystopian.

Not saying it's bad, on the contrary it's pretty damn good. But if I want some uplifting SF, I look elsewhere.

 

[8ball]

As is your right. I like the distinction, being poor at arithmetic.

Lots of mathematicians are poor at the narrow set of operational algorithms that you have conflated with the term "arithmetic".

 

[danny la rouge]

Lots of mathematicians are poor at the narrow set of operational algorithms that you have conflated with the term "arithmetic".

Look, take it up with the SQA. I’m done here.

 

[spanglechick]

I've only seen the first two series before it got really big in the US, but I think that Black Mirror has got be some of the most seriously bleak science fiction I've seen. It doesn't have any rocket ships nor steely-eyed, lantern-jawed men in boiler suits who patronise the viewer with Heinlein-style moralising, but watch episodes like "15 Million Merits" and tell me that the world portrayed within isn't utterly dystopian.

Not saying it's bad, on the contrary it's pretty damn good. But if I want some uplifting SF, I look elsewhere.

Yes. But there’s dystopias and dystopias. That ep of Black Mirror (and the series generally) imposes tech advances onto a world I recognise. In this case, trashy reality tv. The characters aren’t tough talking cops or warriors, they’re just interesting people you might meet trying to muddle along.

 

[kabbes]

Pre-70s science fiction tends more towards the utiopas than dystopias. You’d still hate it though, and it’s not short on boiler suits.

 

[spanglechick]

Pre-70s science fiction tends more towards the utiopas than dystopias. You’d still hate it though, and it’s not short on boiler suits.

Yeah. I don’t want utopias either. I want recognisable, credible characters and societies. And soft furnishings and a range of individual clothing choices for all.