No, They Isn't

Is our children learning science?

Science Indicators: The More Things Change, the More They Don’t

Science literacy, or, to be more precise, the lack of science literacy.

The wrong answers to all these questions are idiotic, but they’re not idiotic in a religious way, unless I’ve been missing the public lobbying from the First Church of the Acousto-Optic God. The problem isn’t religion, or political lobbying, or idiot celebrities peddling quackery– the problem is that we do a piss-poor job of teaching science, period. All fields, all areas, people are not getting the science education they need.

Excellent point.

Update: I had missed something important in originally posting this. from Sheril’s summary

The universe began with a huge explosion. (True)
Male 40
Female 27*

* that right folks, almost 3/4 of female respondents answered incorrectly

Um, not necessarily. It’s a crappy question — characterizing the big bang as a “huge explosion” is is way too ambiguous, IMO. Most people think of an explosion in the sense of setting off some dynamite, or something similar, and it wasn’t: it was a rapid expansion of spacetime. A question where understanding more may actually reduce the score.

How Do You Solve a Problem Like Two Marias?

If you work in a big enough place, or even a small one for long enough, you’ll eventually run into the problem of two or more workers with the same first name. What do you do to bring the Pauli exclusion principle into play — a way to distinguish them so they don’t occupy the same state? Assuming, of course, you aren’t Australian philosophers, in which case “Bruce” works for everyone.

I’ve seen a case within a fairly small group that had four guys with the same first name. That was solved because, like many names, you can use versions of them, e.g. John vs Johnny, one of the guys was often called by his last name, and for the last one we used his initials (though I’m told people in the same/adjacent offices just called him “Mike”). And obviously nicknames are an option. In one dorm, back when I was in school, there was Big G and Little G. The Kids in the Hall had Cathy with a C and Kathy with a K. I once heard a colleague refer to the newest addition as “New Carla,” but is one brave enough to call the other one “Old Carla?” (What if Carla isn’t old? What if she is?). Ownership is another option — same name but different divisions has led to conversations such as, “Brent said he needed it. No, not our Brent, their Brent.”

Any other inventive ways of delineating office identities?

Dogma as Far as the Eye Can See

Greg Laden on the Pioneer Anomaly

I’ll be interested to see a more detailed analysis. I can easily imagine how nonuniform heat flow and different emissivities could lead to asymmetric radiation patterns, and that would cause a small force on the craft.

[N]owhere in this story do you hear people denigrating, belittling, or even expelling scientists who are suggesting that a change in the dogma may be afoot. Einstein’s gravitational theory is dogma in physics, and physicists are always questioning it. Darwinian evolution is dogma in biology and biologists are always questioning it. This crap about how we expel people who don’t blindly accept the dogma is, well, crap.

OK, so there really isn’t any dogma, I was just kidding. Though I’d have put “dogma” in quotes, and say something like “Einstein’s gravitational theory is “dogma” in physics, and yet physicists are always questioning it.” and similar for the sentence that follows. All that it takes to see that science isn’t dogma is to open your eyes and look at the data and evidence.

But we are high priests of science. That much I know.