Is "scientific illiteracy" really a problem or have

Are you >imblying neuroscience isn't science ?

>>7641688
it's a problem when scientific illiterate kongressmen/taxpayer pull the plug on important research just because they don't understand why it's important.

a congressman used a fucking snowball IN CONGRESS to try to disprove climate change

you tell me

>>7641688
Harris is a wannabe, but scientific illiteracy is no joke. See any modern media outlet today.
Also politicians, fuck.

now better watch popsci movie to inform yourself nerd

>>7643467
>Harris is a wannabe
i can't think of a more inappropriate word to describe harris lol

>>7643467
>it's a problem when scientific illiterate kongressmen/taxpayer pull the plug on important research just because they don't understand why it's important.
yeah, I lost faith in him as a representative for atheism when he got rekt in a debate about if there can be objective moral values and duties without religion/jesus. How atheism succeed when its religion that wins every argument?

>>7643549
>>i can't think of a more inappropriate word to describe harris lol


he's a wannabe philosopher. they put on shows to see if he can argue his way out of a wet paper bag and the "science is love and life" crowd eats it up because "its SCIENCE"

>>7641688
Who gives a shit if an insurance salesman doesn't understand abiogenesis

Who gives a shit if a Mexican dirt farmer doesn't understand covalent bonding

Scientific literacy is worthless

>>7643595
>How atheism succeed when its religion that wins every argument?
maybe your belief in atheism is flawed and religion is right?

>>7644529
nobody has a belief in atheism you troll, it's a lack of theism. The "a" is the clue there.
Religion can't be right about anything, that would remove the requirement for faith. Science requires rigor, the ability to change views when presented with compelling new evidence. Religion requires faith, the ability to keep a view in SPITE of compelling new evidence. Faith is belief despite proof that belief is wrong.
The average joe's inability to put this together is why the religion/science 'debate' is such an abject waste.

File: image.jpg (41KB, 510x609px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 510x609px

>>7644546
>implying religion and science conflict or even interact at all

They are two parallel lines

>>7644526
>Who gives a shit if a Mexican dirt farmer doesn't understand covalent bonding
He doesn't have to understand chemistry, the problem arises when a chemist comes up with a cheap, clean way to preserve trace elements in soil that would increase the farmer's efficiency but no, the farmer don't wanna hear from no scientist, he wants to sacrifice chickens to a carved face on a mountain because that's what's worked for hundreds of years so far.
You probably think we're a long way from such primitive stupidity.

>>7644526
People that need to convince them off anything using scientific data for the betterment of humanity. If they don't understand enough to trust scientific evidence when it's rigorous and relevant, how will you convince them to spend money replacing something like fossil fuels, for example?

>>7644553
>>implying religion and science conflict
Excommunications and burnings, imprisonment and torture by religious power have held science back, hard. For centuries.

>>7644554
Show the farmer higher yields

What on earth are you basing your statement on? What modern farmer sacrifices goats as an alternative to fertilizer?

You have a nice theory, but there's not really much evidence to support that

>>7644556
>how will you convince them to spend money replacing something like fossil fuels, for example?
Make the replacement cheaper then fossil fuel

>>7644563
>Excommunications
Like who?
>and burnings,
Like who?
>imprisonment
Like who?
>and torture by religious power have held science back
Who tortured?

>

>>7643220

>>7644563
ok edgelord

>>7644580
>then
>>7644590
Google the Vatican
>>7644671
ok

>>7644511
Are you sure you aren't confusing him will Bill Nye?

>>7644715
I'm on mobile faggot

You think I give a shit about grammar?

Fuck of to Reddit they give lots of thumbs for pointing out someone hit E when they should have hit A

File: image.png (2MB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2048x1536px

>>7644715
It seems like a nice place, what's the problem?


Also who knew it only had a population of 451 people


Did you perhaps have some kind of argument you wanted to make?

>>7644715
>Who translated the classics from Greek to Latin to English
Hint, the monasteries
>Who developed the scientific method
There are many examples of religions contributing to science, I don't deny that sometimes they directly contradict but you sir are a fucking dip

>>7644546
you're a fucking idiot. you are the reason nobody likes atheist faggots

>>7644546
>theism is a belief
>stick an "a" in front and that ceases to be the case
nice meme faggot

>>7644746
>I'm on mobile
get a real computer fgt pls

>>7644832
crymoar fgt

>>7644843
how does it feel that the belief in God's existence is literally just as valid as the belief in the big bang?

>>7644725
Have you read Sam Harris' book? Sam Harris is a would-be philosopher who is only an expert in neuroscience. He has charisma, for sure, but he clearly does not know what he is talking about when concerning philosophy. He profits by being a public figure for atheists by using his PhD credentials. His arguments are influential for younger atheists who are looking for commiseration, but if you are looking for intellectually sound arguments, he is not the man.

If you want intellectually strong arguments from a philosopher who works with neuroscience, read Walter Sinnott-Armstrong's book and watch his debates.

>>7641688
Scientific illiteracy is a problem when concerning politics and education.

Because the scientifically illiterate have a significant hand in deciding policies and education, their inability to understand science reaches to the future generations, crippling their ability to make sound decisions for the future.

This is why we have politicians using snowballs as counter-arguments against Climate Change. This is why we have presidents who do not believe in the big bang, evolution, and thinks pyramids were built by biblical figures.

>>7641688
I think in industrial societies it's a problem even in America: think of the Tacoma narrows bridge. But more than anything else the problem is a PR problem. About every person(non /sci) I meet will assume my intelligence/expertise because I have a BA in EE, that's a problem. People tend to view scientific process more or less like magic instead of archaeology (creation instead of discovery). The examples of the two extremes could be thought of as Solar road ways fanatics and young earth creationist museums, both are problems created by mysticism surrounding scientific knowledge. This sort of mysticism could easily be dispelled by a basic schooling in relevant topics but that schooling requires some effort and discomfort so good luck with that I'll just be over here trying to do my thing and hope that this type of illiteracy doesn't ruin our democracy.

>TL; DR:
IDK God did it and IDK Scientists did it are both bad but good luck trying to solve that problem without becoming a meme or celebrity scientist.

The truth is now that people in the West are somewhat comfortable they don't feel the need for inquiry or even self reflection on the state of their own ignorance.

>>7644896
You really summed up the problem in your last sentence there.
I just don't understand how politicians can take scientific proposal A and reject it without so much as listening to an advisor who knows what it is about.

>>7643040
>kongressmen
Dump your piss jars, or at least seal them. They are starting to smell up the joint.

>>7644882
What are some examples of him being intellectually unsound?

>>7644999
First off he's a retarded nigger faggot who believes we live in a simulation.

File: 1445724204850.jpg (40KB, 600x459px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 600x459px

>>7645120
whoah

>>7645120
>believes we live in a simulation
Why does he believe this?

>>7644999
Sam Harris makes a lot of bold assertions about there not being free will -- which, there very well may not be, but his argument is very weak for how strong his claim is. Furthermore, he neglects criticisms from his colleagues.

Read his book Free Will and compare it to Walter Sinnott-Armstrong's. Sam Harris is not an idiot by any measure, but his book is in a field that he is not an expert in -- which is fine. It just shows when you read a book by a fellow atheist whose field of expertise this is in.

>>7644563
read a book

>>7644882
I have, have not gotten that impression from any of his works.

>>7645120
Implying you know shit. We might live a simulation.

>>7645141
>Read his book Free Will and compare it to Walter Sinnott-Armstrong's. Sam Harris is not an idiot by any measure, but his book is in a field that he is not an expert in -- which is fine. It just shows when you read a book by a fellow atheist whose field of expertise this is in.

maybe some of you will find this interesting... shows that this whole free will debate existed long ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCwR1ztUXtU

I also liked the heisenberg interview from the same channel (if you speak german) its not about free will though.

>>7645447
Of course the free will debate existed long ago, it is at the very core of our identities.

Pity free will doesn't exist.

>>7645914
Did you choose to post that?

File: d_06_cr_mou_4a[1].jpg (17KB, 330x279px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 330x279px

>>7645931
I'm not him but the problem is in understanding consciousness. From what I understand you can directly influence the brain and make someone feel like they chose an action themselves.

I like the perspective that feeling like "you" own "your" actions allows one to recognize those actions that "you" don't own and occur due to a neurological disorder for example. Pinning down what in the brain causes one to distinguish involuntary movement from intended movement would likely be related to the hard problem of consciousness. I don't really know anything about neurology but I'm guessing we can know if an action was "intentional" or not by directly examining the brain without the consciousness we associate with that body telling us that it is so.

File: cJwRVmJ.gif (2MB, 500x282px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x282px

>>7645944
>I'm not him but the problem is in understanding consciousness.
I'm not him either, but your argument consists of "you aren't really making the decisions, your brain is".
You're overlooking the fact that the brain is a part of me.
If I have a neurological disorder, then that's part of who I am.
So it's still me making the decisions.

>>7641688
Immigration from thirldworld shitholes to firstworld Nations is a problem yes, but it doesn't matter in the long run as the future is Chinese anyway.

>>7645951
The problem is in words. The current symbolic realm of language necessarily extracts the concept of a self ("I" "you" "me" "we") from the processes of the brain.

>>7645956
No it doesn't. If someone twitches, they twitch, we don't say their body twitched. A person is hungry, a person is sad, it isn't that the person's body are these thing, or that they have it (fuck Spanish so hard).

>>7645955
The Chinese are a house of cards, the future is in Latin America.

>>7645993
Latin America are arabtier in intelligence, there is nothing of value to be found there.
Only europeans and eastasians are worth anything, but europeans are genociding themselves, and japanese and korean are a small fraction of China's population.

That you accept your chinese overlords or not will not change the outcome.

>>7645996
Unless you can give me a few reasons why Why Nations Fail is shit I'm inclined to take their word for it rather than yours.

>>7645989
If a dead body is twitching we say "he twitches" even though "he" is no longer alive (i.e. does not exist.) It comes down to the structure of symbolic reality.

>>7645996
>europeans are genociding themselves
Really? Looks like they're importing a load of cheap labor to me.

>>7641688
40% of u.s. thinks that the sun orbits earth, soo...

>>7645951
>If I have a neurological disorder, then that's part of who I am.
This is not always so clean cut, though.

In 2003, a man had a brain tumor that slowly but dramatically altered his behavior from being a clean-cut man with no criminal record for 40 years to a raving pervert that eventually devolved into a pedophile.

After begging for medical treatment, doctors discovered and removed an egg-sized brain tumor from his frontal lobe. Immediately, his thoughts returned to normal. A year later, he reported that his perverted thoughts were returning. After another brain scan, they discovered the tumor returned, and they removed it again, returning him to normal.

So was the tumor a part of who he is? I personally think not. I also believe the tumor excuses him from his actions, since he was not responsible for them. Accountability is a large aspect of the notion of free will, and I believe most humans think the same considering how our laws are designed to consider intent and if a person was able to make a rational decision on their own.

>>7645944
There are many studies that try to pin down intentional vs. not in our consciousness. The situation is very convoluted, because in some cases, decisions are made before humans are conscious of them. That is, they experience the thought process after it occurs in other parts of the brain. However, in other cases, the conscious mind can supersede thoughts and stop actions.

>>7645951
Does it make sense to say that a system that behaves completely within the principles of determinism has a "free will"? Is being aware of our decisions and having the illusion of choice enough to say that we possess free will?

>>7641688
Yes if more people were scientifically literate they would know how to protect themselves from the vaccines that give their children autism, and the microwave ovens that send cancer waves into your family. It's shit like this that makes me cry every time I see a GMO food in the market.

If you want to know more check out my friend Beth's Facebook posts, she's included a few tumblr links in them you should really read.

>>7644858
i already saw the big bang m8 your mother was there and everything

>>7647394
You know you caught yourself in the collateral, right?

I think a lot of confusion comes from whether the point of science is to know or to provide a means to act.

Inactionable knowledge is meaningless and thus unknowable. So in this sense all science exists only to give us a means to act, and not - as many would say - to understand the universe.

>>7647351
The concept of free will needs to be rigorously stated. I take it as the idea that you could have done differently than you did.

"When you will have made him a body without organs,
then you will have delivered him from all his automatic reactions
and restored him to his true freedom."

>>7644752
>/pol/
Please leave this board.

>>7647891
>not liking fun

>>7647891
>muh feelings! muh club! the other club sucks!

you people are fucking embarrassing

>>7641688
When the people who decide the funding for scientific research, cant understand scientific research, bad things happen.

>>7647891
Spotted the redditor.

>>7648136
You're just as fucking bad, with the same shitty club mentality.

>>7647950
>>7647969
>>7648136
It's time to spot posting and go back to /pol/, friend.

Here, I'll even help you:

>>>/pol/

>>7648140
amazing points, superb contribution, absolutely not embarrassing

>>7648142
Are you embarrassed because that's your home board? There's no need to be, you can do your part to help make /sci/ better! It's really easy, all you need to do is go straight back there ASAP:

>>>/pol/
>>>/pol/
>>>/pol/

It would be incredibly cool if like 50 %or 25% of the population had some naive understanding of basic statistical concepts

Like means and distributions and variance
(How a population can have s lower mean than another population but easily have data points higher than most or all of that other population)

Basic bayes rule , how the probability of x being true given that we know that y is true is not the same as the probability of y being true given that x is true except in certain cases.

Understanding that incidence per capita is often what matters more than total incidence

Understanding the amount of extra confidence you get from surveying or sampling more of a population rapidly decreases such that sampling 100000 often. Tells you very little more than sampling 10000

Imagine how cool it would be living in a world like that.
Statistics should be a bigger priority for highschool compulsory maths.

At least enough that they can have some bearing on evidence and claims and investigations and critical thinking

>>7641688
Both. Each causes the other, but each also spreads awareness of the other. The reality is everyone's full of shit and we've all been arguing semantics since the creation of mathematics.

>>7644563
>this is the average poster on /sci/

>>7643595
>yeah, I lost faith in him as a representative for atheism when he got rekt in a debate about if there can be objective moral values and duties without religion/jesus.

source?

>>7648160
>Bayes rule
>done probability/stat course two years ago
>only vague recollection of this being a thing
guess it's a good thing i need to take another stats course

>>7648140
What's spot posting?

>>7641688
I think we've largely been meme'd. Yes more scientific knowledge among the general public would be nice but the notion that we'd be living real life Star Trek now if it wasn't for those pesky republicans is nuts.

The fact is allot of the things we try to in science now are very complex and technical and that can't necessarily be alleviated by just throwing more money at the problems or even throwing more people at them.

Like space travel for example. Even if they gave NASA an unlimited budget and as many workers as they wanted that wouldn't change the fact that the real problem with travel to Mars is we don't have a practical design for a space craft that can take off from Earth, land on Mars, then turn around and do it again.

Scientific progress is "slow" now because we're trying to do really complicated shit, the easy stuff has been done.

>>7644580
>Show the farmer higher yields
Hey son, we've done EXACTLY that with GMOs. Morons still think they are dangerous and, get this, lower yield than organics.