We have now produced two-and-a-half generations of people who do not understand the scientific method, who are woefully unskilled in mathematics, and who do not have the tools to understand how things work. They are unable to evaluate what they are told on scientific topics. They don't have the inherent skepticism that underlies a sound scientific education. They do not know how to ask for and evaluate data, so they just accept conclusions made by others. They are at the mercy of other, (no less ignorant) people who either "report" science news or politicize scientific matters as a means of accumulating power in the society. Critical reasoning has virtually ceased and people don't know how to think for themselves anymore.

How did this happen? It begins in the elementary schools, where so many math and science challenged people gravitate because the educational requirements to be a teacher don't require a working knowledge of math and science! The depths of ignorance in the teaching profession on science and math are staggering! They might as well be teaching magic, for all their lack of understanding.

Whether global warming is a fact or not, the teachers need to be teaching children how to evaluate the matter for themselves, not just repeating the current headlines and Al Gore. Global temperature data is available; carbon dioxide data is available. What is lacking is the willingness of the general public to actually ask for and think about the data and the ability to distinguish between cause and effect and random correlations.

The pros and cons of vaccination can be rationally discussed only among people who have a grasp of the concept of statistical risk. Our entire population lacks such an understanding. Most of the people educated in America have a greater fear of a nuclear power plant on the far side of their state than they do of crossing the street; the former is virtually no risk and the latter might actually kill you. How does one explain that to someone whose teachers literally found fractions and decimals baffling?

It's time we put teachers in the classroom who are competent in science, mathematics and engineering.

So people three and four generations ago were scientifically literate? And where do we get the resources to attract scientifically literate people to babysit, er, I mean teach with their hands tied?

bksmell,

I think so, that they were literate. At least we could use the multiplication tables and were functional in fractions, long division, etc! We learned the scientific method of thinking about things.

If increasing teacher pay would attract scientifically literate teachers, we should do it.

I'm sorry to introduce reality into the discussion but there are far too many teachers (and even worse administrators) for them to be paid what they and apparently you think they should be.

While I agree with your first post this one is just abhorrent. The reason us in the younger generation don't know multiplication tables and struggle with long division is because the calculator did to them what written language did to the oral tradition. Pure memorization of the multiplication tables doesn't do any good its the application of it (which is where we are failing miserably). For example, I could not for the life of my get the quadratic formula 100% correct from memory but if I ran into a problem that needed its use I'd know to find it and how to use, several of the people I went to school with could praddle off what it was but would not be able to use it.

As for how to fix this problem, I agree that it needs to start in elementary school. With around 3rd or 4th graders it shouldn't be too hard at all to constantly have them ask very simple questions and seek the answers using the scientific method. Just to introduce them to that line of thinking.

A way to increase teacher pay would be to due away with principals and have the teachers do that work more communally. Have the teachers in each school elect from their own that assumes this extra responsibility (and maybe they'd get one less class to teach as well to deal with these issues) we'd be able to distribute the saved pay over the rest of the teachers.

All in all, I agree with you. I just took exception from your post that somehow knowing the multiplication tables made the older generations more scientifically literate.

Pitschni is correct. The current general thinking in education is- What good is rote memorization when you have a calculator and the internet at your fingertips at all times, especially in the workplace.

What is being more emphasized is creative problem solving, networking and self-reliance. A side-effect of the rote memorization of the past was a slavish drone mentality. A mindless respect for the work and procedures developed by the experts. In today's age, there is far more questioning and re-evaluation of the laws of the universe as handed down by experts; more individual tailoring of procedures to address the specific problems at individual worksites.

This questioning of the experts naturally bothers those who prefer following established procedures and vice versa. But clearly there are advantages to both approaches.

I think the core education should try to instill a better respect for language itself. I see lots of noisy debate about 'evolution", for example, among people who don't have a clue what the heck it is. A good clue as to what evolution is would be the title of the best-known book by Darwin. Of course, very few of the debators could say what that title is, and certainly have not read any of the book itself.

Another example struck me recently, during that experimental crash on the moon (intended to produce a plume that could be sampled for traces of water). The press instantly, and almost unanimously pronounced it a failure, because it did not produce a stunning visual. Even worse, at least one commentator somehow started talking about potential sites on the moon where ice might reside, and injected some strange estimates as to the "area" of the moon's south pole. Now, a "pole" is, of course a geometric point, one of two defining an axis of rotation And I was taught in 8th grade geometry that a point has no "area" at all. Certainly, in earth science, we might meaningfully conflate the South Pole with the continent of Antarctica. But, does the moon have continents? If so, I'd like to be educated on that; but I think it's more likely that the commentator was just blathering anything that seemed "technical".

Back to the language thing: That so much of the public misunderstands how the word "theory" applies in science is the reason for endless mindless "debate". Like so many words in natural language, "theory" can mean one thing in philosophy, another in music, still another in natural sciences. But the use of the word has led many ignoramuses to the non-sequitur that "one theory is as good as another". Which is simply stupid. The fact that evolution is a scientific "theory" does not mean it has equal intellectual standing with a religious "theory" that the earth is 6,000 years old.

I just saw a crawl-text headline this AM "Scientists say exercise lessens the risk of prostate cancer.". Now this seems a reaonable enough assumption to make -- and, heck! we all agree that exercise is generally good for us -- but "scientists say"??? I have no doubt that it's based on some study whose results seem consistent with that assumption. For all I know, it might develop into a scientific consensus. But that headline presented it as a done deal. Of course, future studies might well show results that color this one's -- and the "science" news will then be chirruping that "scientists have changed their minds".