
What Americans Don't Know About Science  - ghosh
http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/02/what-americans-dont-know-about-science/283864/
======
yoha
Seriously, lots of these questions are ambiguous to educated people:

> The center of the earth is very hot

Not it's not. Stars are way hotter.

> Does the Earth go around the Sun, or does the Sun go around the Earth?

Yes. Both? Neither? Depends on which point of view is the most useful.

> The universe began with a huge explosion

No. It did _not_. The universe _expanded_. It is a huge difference.

> It is the father’s gene that decides whether the baby is a boy or a girl

What is "this gene" you're talking about? Are you sure you now the difference
between a gene and chromosome?

> Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of
> animals

This is way more ambiguous that you may think: from this statement, you could
infer the theory evolution or something totally stupid.

Additionally, other questions are just made to be answered wrong for common
people.

> The continents have been moving their location for millions of years and
> will continue to move

The question is long, there must be a trick somewhere, I'll answer no just in
case.

> All radioactivity is man-made

I have heard that bananas were radioactive too, but I guess that's not so
important so this is not what this question is about, right?

> Electrons are smaller than atoms

Err… whatever, I'll just guess.

> Lasers work by focusing sound waves

Lasers is dangerous light. I don't know how they are made though and this
explanation sounds sciency, why not?

And just as a bonus:

> Antibiotics kill viruses as well as bacteria

You _do_ know that viruses are not commonly considered as living beings,
right? Using "kill" make it so that you don't know what the question is about
anymore.

tl;dr: these questions were just selected to trick people into answering
wrong, I would say they were other questions whose results shown opposite
trends (due to randomness), but were not disruptive anough for the article

------
sentenza
What I find more shocking is that the EU number is even lower than that. I
would very much like to see this divided up by EU countries because I
seriously don't understand what is going on here.

This is what I would personally expect from a survey here in Germany: Answers
shaped by "worst-case" assumptions and disdain towards nuclear power, genetic
engineering and possibly some misinformation regarding vaccinations and
homeopathy. With the "Is all radioactivity man-made" question, for instance, I
would expect sub-par performance of my fellow countrymen.

But the Earth moving around the sun??? I mean even if somebody were to get all
their information from watching television over here, they would know _that_.

~~~
AdamN
Yeah, and what's up with Japan

------
billyjobob
His ignorance was as remarkable as his knowledge. Of contemporary literature,
philosophy and politics he appeared to know next to nothing. Upon my quoting
Thomas Carlyle, he inquired in the naivest way who he might be and what he had
done. My surprise reached a climax, however, when I found incidentally that he
was ignorant of the Copernican Theory and of the composition of the Solar
System. That any civilized human being in this nineteenth century should not
be aware that the earth travelled round the sun appeared to be to me such an
extraordinary fact that I could hardly realize it.

"You appear to be astonished," he said, smiling at my expression of surprise.
"Now that I do know it I shall do my best to forget it."

"To forget it!"

"You see," he explained, "I consider that a man's brain originally is like a
little empty attic, and you have to stock it with such furniture as you
choose. A fool takes in all the lumber of every sort that he comes across, so
that the knowledge which might be useful to him gets crowded out, or at best
is jumbled up with a lot of other things so that he has a difficulty in laying
his hands upon it. Now the skilful workman is very careful indeed as to what
he takes into his brain-attic. He will have nothing but the tools which may
help him in doing his work, but of these he has a large assortment, and all in
the most perfect order. It is a mistake to think that that little room has
elastic walls and can distend to any extent. Depend upon it there comes a time
when for every addition of knowledge you forget something that you knew
before. It is of the highest importance, therefore, not to have useless facts
elbowing out the useful ones."

"But the Solar System!" I protested.

"What the deuce is it to me?" he interrupted impatiently; "you say that we go
round the sun. If we went round the moon it would not make a pennyworth of
difference to me or to my work."

~~~
andyjohnson0
I'm not sure why this unattributed. The passage is from _A Study in Scarlet_ ,
by Arthur Conan Doyle.

~~~
Delmania
Also, this is when Watson first meets Holmes.

------
nmc
_" Does the Earth go around the Sun, or does the Sun go around the Earth?"_

Fortunately, Americans are not stupid. They know that "A goes around B" and "B
goes around A" are _equivalent_ because there is no real Galilean reference
frame.

The Earth goes around the sun _from the Sun 's perspective_. Considering this
is true means the Sun has a fixed position. This holds for the Solar System —
by definition, the Sun is fixed at the center. Moreover, there is a lot of
other stuff going around the Sun — while the Earth only has the Moon and a
bunch of metal boxes.

Concerning the Universe, neither the Sun nor Earth are fixed. Depending on the
reference frame, one is going around the other, and vice-versa. So both _"
true"_ and _" false"_ are correct answers.

~~~
palmtree3000
I'm probably taking your comment far too seriously, but....

The Sun's reference frame is privileged compared to ours: it is far closer to
being an inertial reference frame[0], deviating from wobble induced by Jupiter
and its long orbit around the galactic core.

(This is from a purely Newtonian perspective: both would be considered
inertial in GR.)

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_reference_frame](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_reference_frame)

~~~
nmc
I think you mean "both would _not_ be considered inertial in GR". An inertial
frame of reference suggests the existence of a homogeneous, isotropic region
of space; in general relativity, gravitation shapes space and, since
gravitation has infinite range, such a region does not exist.

The closest relativistic thing would be a reference frame free-falling inside
a gravitational field: it is locally inertial.

So yes, the Sun is _more inertial_ than Earth, but neither are a real inertial
reference frame — because such a thing cannot exist. In Newtonian perspective,
they can both be considered inertial — but you will also need to pick three
stars far enough so they seem immobile.

------
001sky
The existence of a left hand tail is not evidence that a distribution is
skewed.

 _Americans may be answering not based on knowledge, but on belief. As shown
above, only 48 percent of Americans responded "true" to the statement "Human
beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals." But
if the question was reframed slightly, far more people responded with "true."
Given the statement "according to the theory of evolution, human beings, as we
know them today, developed from earlier species of animals," 72 percent
answered "true." (Emphasis mine.) A similar pattern happens with the Big Bang
question. When the statement is simply "The universe began with a huge
explosion," 39 percent responded "true." When it is "according to astronomers,
the universe began with a huge explosion," 60 percent said "true." This seems
to indicate that many Americans are familiar with the theories of evolution
and the Big Bang; they simply don't believe they're true._

To wit, people don't believe everything they read.

~~~
nmc
Yes, they do.

Just looks like _The Bible_ is more trustworthy than _On the Origin of
Species_.

~~~
001sky
It demonstrates a huge lack of judgement to assume you understand how other
people think from telephone survey.

[http://www.gallup.com/poll/147824/adults-estimate-
americans-...](http://www.gallup.com/poll/147824/adults-estimate-americans-
gay-lesbian.aspx)

[http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/who-responds-to-
tele...](http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/who-responds-to-telephone-
polls-anymore-20120719)

[http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2014/01/young-
pranksters...](http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2014/01/young-pranksters-
skewed-landmark-sexuality-study)

TLDR: It's not unknown for people to answer these things like Bart Simpson,
and sniggering in the background.

~~~
nmc
Disclaimer: That comment was a joke. I do not pretend to understand anyone's
way of thinking.

Thank you for clarifying.

------
mcv
So apparently, a quarter of Americans gets "Does the Earth go around the Sun,
or does the Sun go around the Earth?" wrong. Imagine my surprise that of EU
citizens, a third got the question wrong! We score lower than India and
Malaysia, which scored significantly lower at the earlier questions.

I'm totally baffled about how so many people from well-educated nations with
space programs can get this wrong.

~~~
venomsnake
Well - I had a friend of mine that didn't knew who Cardinal Richelieu was -
and he had two masters degrees with flying colors.

So he never bothered to remember the history lessons thought at school (the
Cardinal was somewhat influential figure during the uneventful times known as
the 30 year war that shaped modern Europe and set in motion the processes that
culminated in WWII) and never even watched or read the Three Musketeers.
Sometimes ignorance could be found in the most surprising places.

~~~
nmc
_" the Cardinal was somewhat influential figure during the uneventful times
known as the 30 year war that shaped modern Europe and set in motion the
processes that culminated in WWII"_

I am going to take this point by point.

\- Cardinal Richelieu was extremely influential: he was the "Prime Minister"
of Louis XIII, King of France, for 18 years, and he had a drastic impact on
his time.

\- The Thirty Years' War was not _" uneventful"_. Millions of people were
slaughtered, notably about 60% of the population of Central Europe.

\- The first half of the 17th century changed the shape of Europe: absolutism
won over feudalism, while catholics massacred a great deal of protestants in
Western Europe, almost destroying the Holy Romano-German Empire _en passant_.
But the shape of Europe changed again after that.

Your reference to WWII is so far-fetched that I will wait for you to provide
me with a reference before I start arguing against it.

~~~
venomsnake
Richelieu introduced the concept of raison d'etat which elevated the nation
and national interests above that of the church (he was supporting protestant
rebels against the catholic aligned rulers to avoid encirclement of france by
the Hapsburgs) The 30 year war lead to fragmented germany kept this way for
two centuries, dominant france up to the Napoleonic wars. The dominant france
lead to the whole balance of power concept that GB tried its best to upheld up
to the 1940s. The fragmented Germany was natural battleground for the
bloodiest conflicts on the continent since which lead to the ingrained desire
for strength power and security above all. Germany never had the chance to
mature out of it as a country after the unification - Bismarck left it with
too much power for the leaders to absorb and control which led to WWI - it was
the braking down of the balance of power order. And WWII was just extension of
WWI mainly because of the idiotic treaty of Versailles that did squat to
reconcile overpowered germany with the rest of the continent and the inability
of USA to contain the great depression.

~~~
nmc
> _Richelieu introduced the concept of raison d 'etat which elevated the
> nation and national interests above that of the church (he was supporting
> protestant rebels against the catholic aligned rulers to avoid encirclement
> of france by the Hapsburgs)_

Yes.

> _The 30 year war lead to fragmented germany kept this way for two centuries,
> dominant france up to the Napoleonic wars._

Oversimplified. The Peace of Westphalia destroying the Empire and its ideals
is a common misconception (Axel Gotthard, _Das Alte Reich 1495–1806_ ).
Despite a bad financial situation, the Empire lived on. A _" dominant"_ France
is an overstatement: yes, Austria and the Iberian Union were hit hard, but
England and Russia were unharmed by the war, and the Republic of The
Netherlands became independent.

> _The dominant france lead to the whole balance of power concept that GB
> tried its best to upheld up to the 1940s._

No. The United States were a British colony that the French helped free: looks
more like France upholding the British balance. Then they won the Napoleonic
wars, and the British Empire started indisputably dominating the world again.

> _The fragmented Germany was natural battleground for the bloodiest conflicts
> on the continent since which lead to the ingrained desire for strength power
> and security above all._

Yes, German unification was a long and painful process. No, it was clearly not
the stage of the _" bloodiest conflicts on the continent since"_ — since when,
by the way? I did not read a lot of German literature from/about that era, so
I cannot argue for/against the _" desire for strength power and security"_.

> _Germany never had the chance to mature out of it as a country after the
> unification - Bismarck left it with too much power for the leaders to absorb
> and control_

I do not know enough about Bismarck's political manoeuvres, so I will take
your word for it.

> _[...] which led to WWI - it was the braking down of the balance of power
> order._

No. It took more than Bismarck to start WWI — actually, it took more than all
Germans. WWI was the result of escalations between France, the British Empire,
and the German Empire, respective to their colonies, due to the mesh of
alliances tying all those countries together and to the rest of Europe.

> _And WWII was just extension of WWI mainly because of the idiotic treaty of
> Versailles that did squat to reconcile overpowered germany with the rest of
> the continent and the inability of USA to contain the great depression._

No. Oh, no.

Yes, the Treaty of Versailles had major flaws, and some of those played a part
in the settings of WWII. Yes, Germany was not fully reconciled with the rest
of the continent. Yes, there was the Great Depression in the USA.

Germany was not overpowered: they were severely underpowered at the time. They
lost a lot of land, mainly to Poland and the Czech Republic. They were
forbidden from having real armed forces. They got hit by the economic
depression harder than any other country.

Also, a major cause for WWII was a guy named Adolf Hitler, who either
misunderstood great philosophers like Nietzsche, or understood less great ones
like Thomas Malthus.

* * *

Just look at the length of your explanation — disregarding my own remarks. I
think it screams _" far-fetched"_.

You could look at all events in history and try to highlight links between
them, and overjustify those links. Some links would always be far-fetched.

------
AdamN
We should remember though that the earth does not revolve around the sun.

They revolve around each other in an ellipse. Practically speaking, the
ellipse heavily 'favors' the sun such that it doesn't move much ... but it
does in fact move in response to the earth's gravitational pull.

------
jotm
I just want to double facepalm, then bang my head against a wall whenever
someone recommends taking antibiotics against the flu or the common cold, as
I've given up trying to explain why it doesn't work ( _viruses are basically
bacteria, right?_ )

~~~
tripzilch
Viruses are smaller than bacteria, so obviously you need more antibiotics to
hit them all.

------
DanBC
I can't quite understand what model people have if they think the sun goes
around the Earth.

It's a bit like the people who don't understand the miles per hour thing ("a
car is travelling at 60 miles per hour. How long will it take to drive 60
miles?")

~~~
conradfr
We had this contestant in "Who wants to be a millionaire" in France :
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmLwnSXNpFU](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmLwnSXNpFU)

Facepalm with the audience results.

------
Robin_Message
A poll like this should ask the questions both ways around (and/or with
multiple phrasings), so you can distinguish guessing (which should come out at
50% correct if the question is not biasing people and no-one knows the right
answer) vs incorrect knowledge (which will come out <50% whatever the
phrasing).

------
lucashn
I don't thing that those are the right questions to ask. Most of then expects
a 'simplified' answer, like the earth revolving the sun and the Big Bang being
an 'explosion'.

