
78% of undergrads say astrology is scientific [pdf] - winestock
http://meinnaturwissenschaftsblog.blogspot.com/2013/02/astrology-beliefs-among-undergraduate.html
======
lutusp
A quote from the abstract: "We find that students’ science literacy, as
defined by the National Science Foundation in its surveys of the general
public, does not strongly correlate with an understanding that astrology is
pseudoscientific, and therefore belief in astrology is likely not a valid
indicator of scientific illiteracy."

In case that explanation was too subtle, it means that the public's
understanding of astrology's pseudoscientific status is so limited that not
knowing that status isn't a fair measure of scientific literacy.

Well, okay, but deplorable nevertheless.

~~~
uvdiv
_it means that the public's understanding of astrology's pseudoscientific
status is so limited that not knowing that status isn't a fair measure of
scientific literacy._

It's also evidence that the NSF questions aren't a fair measure of scientific
literacy. Pretty strong evidence IMHO.

~~~
lutusp
> It's also evidence that the NSF questions aren't a fair measure of
> scientific literacy.

Yes, unless knowing which fields are -- and are not -- scientific has been
accepted as a criterion for scientific literacy. That's what's confusing about
this paper -- it doesn't clearly state what the criteria are for literacy,
then it argues that not knowing the standing of astrology probably isn't a
useful metric.

------
Pitarou
I'm not sure what to make of "belief in astrology is likely not a valid
indicator of scientific illiteracy"!

~~~
uvdiv
I'm sure you won't be sure what to make of this either!

 _Can a person be scientifically literate without accepting the concepts of
evolution and the big bang? To many scientists and educators, the answer to
that question is an unqualified “no.”

But..._

[http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/07/26/kn...](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/07/26/knowledge-
versus-belief-why-the-scientifically-literate-can-believe-silly-things/)

~~~
lutusp
Remember William Shockley? Nobel Prize winner?

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shockley>

He spent the latter years of his life arguing that black people were
genetically inferior, and with a spectacular disregard for evidence.

My point? A high standing in the world of science is no assurance that a
person will apply science to all aspects of his life.

So the question of scientific literacy (in the sense of general knowledge),
and the question of a person's standing as "scientifically educated", are
essentially separate.

