About 25% of Americans Don't Know the Earth Revolves Around the Sun

[RJ 17]

Think I'm going to hitch a ride with Professor Farnsworth because


Look, as an American, I know that we collectively as a nation aren't exactly the brightest bulbs of the bunch. But really? A quarter of Americans surveyed don't know basic 4th grade astronomy? Le sigh...

 

[scorptatious]

Hmm. The Earth revolving around the Sun question I can kinda understand. But considering America is a predominantly Christian country, I can understand why people would apparently get the answers to a question revolving around evolution and the Big Bang "wrong".

Not saying that there wasn't a big bang or we didn't evolve from other animals, I just think it's a bit unfair to call people dumb just because they have a different opinion on how we came about.

 

[LightningFast]

I'll forgive the antibiotics one: it's a fairly easy mistake to make. Actually, 51% isn't too bad.

Now, I'm still pissed that the evolution acceptance rate is low, but it's not THAT much better here in Canada (~60%? This statistic seems a bit low, but so's the one in the article). Even worse, something like 42% of Canadians still believe humans and dinosaurs coexisted. And that's really, really dumb. I'd like to meet the 8% who believe both and see why.

 

[Sunrider]

the examples you gave are micro evolution, macro evolution is a complete change, like from monkey's to human, from fish to whatever.

No. Just...no. The only difference between micro and macro is time.

Spoiler

OT: I see a lot of people saying "Well, most EU countries would get the same results" or whatever. I can't say anything about most of them, but I'd love to see this study performed here. I can promise you that the overwhelming majority of people would not get those wrong.
I'll happily admit my mistake if someone proves me wrong here though, because honestly, I'm not very fond of my own country anyway.

EDIT: I feel like I could add this too. It might be of help.

Spoiler: Fairly large image.

 

[Megalodon]

Also, how does one "kill viruses" anyway?

Best theoretical way is to damage the RNA within the virus, though this can yield mixed results depending on the damage done.

Virus is a single organic molecule, it's not even an organism of any description. It isn't even alive.

Well first up, viruses are not a single molecule. Most viruses consist of a coat of protein, a strand of RNA and a bunch of enzymes that will mess with the target cell in a way that it produces as many copies of the overall virus as possible.

And second, viruses are only considered to be not alive as they dont fulfill scientific guidelines on what is alive. However its mindless drive to reproduce itself makes it only slightly below most kinds of insect, whose nervous system works by holding thier body back from what its made to do.

Just wanted to let you know, viruses don't necessarily use RNA as their genetic material. That's what retroviruses like HIV do, and they have to copy that RNA into DNA to integrate into the host cell and reproduce. But some viruses have DNA as their genetic material (like smallpox).

 

[Asuka Soryu]

"Did the universe begin with a huge explosion? Only 39% answered yes correctly.


Isn't the 'Big Bang' still just a theory?

 

[Morti]

It's just like the 1kg of lead vs 1 kg of feathers thing. Yes, technically the lead weights more (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes%27_principle), so what's the right answer?

Just thought I'd pick this one up, but the answer is still "neither". Weight is the downwards force exerted by a mass due to gravity, buoyancy doesn't change that. Yes, the resultant downwards force exerteted by the lead will be higher than the feathers, but the weights are still the same.



OT: To those complaining about how the questions aren't quite scientific enough themselves: I would hope that whoever did the survey would have accepted an argument relating to an alternative scientific hypothesis or theory as "correct", leaving the results as uneducated/religious fundamentalist vs rational/at least remembers the textbook... that said, given the sample size... I'm not expecting much scrutiny from the team.

Also, I would expect the results for the virus question. The over prescription of antibiotics is starting to be become an issue (superbug doomsday scenario! woo!). One of the things that gets touted as a leading cause is the prescription of antibiotics as a placebo for viral conditions.

 

[Tactical Pause]

Question: Where all pollings such a low number of participants and said that it equates to the population as it is whole?... Seriously 2,200 people in a polling does not prove a dam thing... The EU it even means less since they are even more varried in educational systems and language vs all USA states... Japan also has a big population for it's size verse South Korea or almost any EU country so if the polling there was small it means nothing as well.

You seem to be under the impression that I am attacking other countries; that was not my intention at all. The purpose of my post was to point out that, whether the survey is accurate or not, the results are fairly consistent across the globe, and thus this is not at all a "lol, america so dumb" scenario.

OT: I see a lot of people saying "Well, most EU countries would get the same results" or whatever. I can't say anything about most of them, but I'd love to see this study performed here. I can promise you that the overwhelming majority of people would not get those wrong.
I'll happily admit my mistake if someone proves me wrong here though, because honestly, I'm not very fond of my own country anyway.

Here is the actual source for this information. I am not saying that EU countries would get the same results, because they already did. The question being discussed is on page 23 of that link.

 

[Arnoxthe1]

There's far more evidence that the universe is 13.8 billion years old than that it might be a mere 6000.

I didn't say that, neither do I believe it.

 

[VanTesla]

Question: Where all pollings such a low number of participants and said that it equates to the population as it is whole?... Seriously 2,200 people in a polling does not prove a dam thing... The EU it even means less since they are even more varried in educational systems and language vs all USA states... Japan also has a big population for it's size verse South Korea or almost any EU country so if the polling there was small it means nothing as well.

You seem to be under the impression that I am attacking other countries; that was not my intention at all. The purpose of my post was to point out that, whether the survey is accurate or not, the results are fairly consistent across the globe, and thus this is not at all a "lol, america so dumb" scenario.

I was not under the impression of you attacking other countries and was just calling the surveys into question. How many variables where done in each polling by race, gender, religion, education, age, mental status, and environment all need to be in the polling to give a good enough idea on studies like this beside counting the countries size and population ratio to be most accurate that it can be which most often of times in this case is not happening or incomplete. Also where is this polling/survey coming from and what is the true purpose they are actually looking for? Is it truly to find and fix problems or is it to propagate and gain more funding? Not trying to say there is some kind of silly conspiracy and I do have the pessimistic view that there is likely that many ignorant people if not more, but I am calling into question the studies for many of them have been found to be complete bs.

 

[Morti]

"Did the universe begin with a huge explosion? Only 39% answered yes correctly.


Isn't the 'Big Bang' still just a theory?

Never say "just a theory" when talking about science.

In everyday language "theory" might mean "I think ".

In science a "theory" means "I thought that . So I tested it and my results supported my idea. John then did some tests, those supported my idea too. So did Sam, Pauline and a whole bunch of other scientist around the world. So I am as sure as can be that my idea is as close to accurate as can be given the limits of our current knowledge."

 

[Double A]

There was a different survey a couple of years back, one of the questions was: If Earth revolves around the Sun, how much time does it take to make a full revolution? Around 30% answered one day.

Also, how does one "kill viruses" anyway? Virus is a single organic molecule, it's not even an organism of any description. It isn't even alive.

Split the molecule into atoms?

 

[Tactical Pause]

I was not under the impression of you attacking other countries and was just calling the surveys into question.

Sorry, my mistake. I do understand questioning the legitimacy of the survey. In fact, I think it's always a good idea to ensure the legitimacy of any survey you hear about online.

 

[VanTesla]

I was not under the impression of you attacking other countries and was just calling the surveys into question.

Sorry, my mistake. I do understand questioning the legitimacy of the survey. In fact, I think it's always a good idea to ensure the legitimacy of any survey you hear about online.

Nothing to apologize for since it is hard to convey another persons mood or how they are feeling when communicating through typing. Unless you are very good in english or do silly emotes I guess heh...

 

[Xenedus]

Did the universe begin with a huge explosion? Only 39% answered yes correctly.

This is a dumb question. Even if you take a purely scientific approach the answer is "don't know". A more correct version of the question would be "Can we trace the origin of the known expanding universe to a single point?".

Did human beings, as we know them today, develop from earlier species of animals? Only 48% correctly said yes.

Anyone religious is going to say "no" regardless of whether they are familiar with Evolution. This question isn't testing knowledge it's testing what people will admit to believing.

Do antibiotics kill viruses? Only 51% correctly answered no.

A much more fair question but not really all the surprising of a result. Doctors will generally prescribe antibiotics if they are not sure whether it's a virus or a bacteria so that could cause confusion among the public.

 

[Yuuki]

"Did the universe begin with a huge explosion? Only 39% answered yes correctly.


Isn't the 'Big Bang' still just a theory?

So is gravity (something we still don't understand) and pretty much everything other scientific phenomenon.

Everything we've found out so far points to overwhelming evidence that the universe started off as a singularity and rapidly expanded from there.
Also "explosion" is the wrong word to use, since an explosion must have something to explode INTO...space itself expanding = not an explosion

 

[Synthetica]

It's just like the 1kg of lead vs 1 kg of feathers thing. Yes, technically the lead weights more (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes%27_principle), so what's the right answer?

Just thought I'd pick this one up, but the answer is still "neither". Weight is the downwards force exerted by a mass due to gravity, buoyancy doesn't change that. Yes, the resultant downwards force exerteted by the lead will be higher than the feathers, but the weights are still the same.

Weight and mass are 2 different things. Weight ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight ) is measured in newtons, mass in kg (or whatever people use for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass#Units_of_mass ). The weight (force) is therefor different, but the mass is still the same.

 

[Ratty]

"Did the universe begin with a huge explosion? Only 39% answered yes correctly.


Isn't the 'Big Bang' still just a theory?

Never say "just a theory" when talking about science.

In everyday language "theory" might mean "I think ".

In science a "theory" means "I thought that . So I tested it and my results supported my idea. John then did some tests, those supported my idea too. So did Sam, Pauline and a whole bunch of other scientist around the world. So I am as sure as can be that my idea is as close to accurate as can be given the limits of our current knowledge."

Yeah, in order for an idea to reach "theory" status in science it has to be rigorously tested, explain one or more phenomenon and not conflict with the currently known evidence. If new evidence comes to light discrediting a theory, the theory is either discarded or (if possible) refined to account for the new evidence and the testing begins again. Much of modern medicine is based on the "germ theory of disease" but you don't see a lot of people out saying germs causing people to get sick is "just a theory". (Though you will see a few, usually they'll be trying to sell you something.)

The common non-scientific usage of "theory" is closer to a scientific "hypothesis" though even that is more strict (it has to be testable) than the way "theory" is typically used in every day language.

 

[DoPo]

-ignore-

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Americuh, Fuck Yeah!
Sorry if this sounds like a sterotype, but was this sample from Texas?

I honestly don't want to know how Australia fares, ignorance is bliss. Ironically.
Cue all the people going on about "theories" and "unconfirmed", blahty, blah.

Nothing infuriates me more than when people say something like "Well, evolution is just a theory!", completely oblivious to the meaning of the word theory in a scientific context. That the word theory means something that can be observed and reproduced, such as evolution.

Australia is considered one of the smarter nations, but I'm almost certain that it's just a few very bright people carrying the weight of a very dumb overall populace. Most people don't care to educate themselves on matters more difficult than the location of the nearest pub.

micro evolution can be observed and reproduced, not macro evolution. right now no one definitively knows anything about our origins, and for a true way to test it out, would take thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of years of observation. so right now arguing the validity of one theory or another is pointless. who know maybe we were simply created as stated in one of the many other religions. and being an atheist is a religion, just atheists practice science and what not, and believe that we are our own god so to speak.

No, atheism is not a religion. You know what I "practice"? Drilling holes in metal. You know how often I think about religion? Close to never. I'm just a guy doing stuff without giving a second thought to religion. That isn't a religion.