How much do you know about science topics?

[tp12]

After catching up on this thread I was motivated to do a bit of reading:


"Anti-intellectualism is hostility to and mistrust of intellect, intellectuals, and intellectualism, commonly expressed as deprecation of education and philosophy and the dismissal of art, literature, and science as impractical, politically motivated, and even contemptible human pursuits.[1] Anti-intellectuals present themselves and are perceived as champions of common folk—populists against political and academic elitism—and tend to see educated people as a status class that dominates political discourse and higher education while being detached from the concerns of ordinary people.[1] Totalitarian governments manipulate and apply anti-intellectualism to repress political dissent.[2] During the Spanish Civil War (1936–1939) and the following dictatorship (1939–1975) of General Francisco Franco, the reactionary repression of the White Terror (1936–1945) was notably anti-intellectual, with most of the 200,000 civilians killed being the Spanish intelligentsia, the politically active teachers and academics, artists and writers of the deposed Second Spanish Republic (1931–1939).[3] In the communist state of Democratic Kampuchea (1975–1979), the Khmer Rouge régime of Pol Pot condemned all of the non-communist intelligentsia to death in the Killing Fields.[4] "

[Buzzman]

I agree with the above, but feel that such abuse of intellectuals is a cynical misuse of oratory for purely political purposes.

There is also the 'self-interest' of those from 'faith-based' communities, who, illogically, believe in all sorts of mumbo-jumbo and declare it a greater, or more relevant 'truth' than that supplied by science.

I'm one who doesn't support the notion of 'free speech' for this reason.

If we aren't allowed to talk about Hitler, or the Holocaust, then they should not be allowed to talk about their 'magical sky man', and climate change deniers would be pilloried and held up to the riducule they truly deserved.

Instead, we've had to wait for 'public opinion' to grind its eventual way to a majority opinion that now states those in power (whether corporate or government) must DO something about limiting global warming.

Alas, the populists are still in charge insome places, so this is not happening fast enough.

[StuM]

I haven't seen any "anti-intellectualism" in this thread.


There's a difference between anti-intellectualism and getting frustrated with those who abide by the aphorism "never settle for three syllables when you can use four". Especially when those four syllable words have little or nothing to do with the subject at hand.


Is the "m" in aphorism a fourth syllable?

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by Buzzman

I agree with the above, but feel that such abuse of intellectuals is a cynical misuse of oratory for purely political purposes. <snip>

From Wittgenstein's wiki page:
Wittgenstein asks the reader to think of language as a multiplicity of language-games within which parts of language develop and function. He argues the bewitchments of philosophical problems arise from philosophers' misguided attempts to consider the meaning of words independently of their context, usage, and grammar, what he called "language gone on holiday."[232]
According to Wittgenstein, philosophical problems arise when language is forced from its proper home into a metaphysical environment, where all the familiar and necessary landmarks and contextual clues are removed.
On Hericlitus:
Logos and Knowledge
Behind the universal flux of things there are invariable relations of regularity and succession that law like govern the order of the world: an order that is uncreated and which is common to all. It is this law, common to all, this underlying genus which Heraclitus calls Logos.

My read is that Hericlitus emphasized that a word for something should be related to what the thing is in the real world (i.e. words should NOT be able to go on holiday). My read is that all the ancients (like before Hericlitus' time and across cultures) looked for the patterns in nature...seeking some fundamental underlying logic (logos per Hericlitus).

Nowadays we might call this metaphorical thinking...recognizing that a human cell has basically the same constituents as a town (e.g. each has a library, power plant, factories, external army, local police force, roads, postal service, etc). Recognizing that the patterns associated with scale invariance are all over the place.

At least in modern times, most people are linear thinkers. To some degree they certainly have the capacity to utilize visual-spacial/curvilinear thinking, but it's sort of apparent that many don't recognize just how useful +/- powerful non-linear thinking is. But it's always been damn near impossible to explain it to them...it's like a Mac running a crappy PC emulation telling the PC "hey PC...it's a hell of a lot easier if you use icons instead of DOS commands" when all the PC hears is "{[psychobabble]} #$psychobabble$# (!psychobabble!)."

Notably linear thinkers are more prone to use words like "reason" without consciously thinking that the word reason actually means to count; that rationalizing implies applying ratios/movements in counting...and that meaning means a level balance. On the one hand, we speak in the language of physics, but on the other hand, we routinely neglect to appreciate that "meaning" is what we are doing when...we're trying to make both hands level. There's no way of explaining this without many, many words...trying to describe a picture...but many people can't actually visualize such in their head (aphantasia)...and many have a...frankly short attention span and/or short fuse.

Regarding populism, politics, religion...quite simply, it's much easier to manipulate people who utilize linear thinking, particularly if you start incorporating any numbers into the mix, rhetoric that goes "back and forth" in time, etc.

[tp12]

Originally Posted by StuM

I haven't seen any "anti-intellectualism" in this thread.

I'm sure you haven't


My quote is something to think about, anyway.

[Singularity]

Let me apologize to Stu...I assume that he is frustrated from my inability to be more concise....guilty as charged, sort of. I sincerely endeavor to be more clear and really not ask "what am I thinking" questions any more than is required, but such was sort of required with the "9" problem.

I don't think there's any anti-intellectualism here...

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Singularity

Let me apologize to Stu...I assume that he is frustrated from my inability to be more concise...

You're in good company.
“I have made this longer than usual because I have not had time to make it shorter.” ~ Blaise Pascal
“I have already made this paper too long, for which I must crave pardon, not having now time to make it shorter.” ~ Benjamin Franklin
The notion that it takes longer to compose concise remarks, than it does to be verbose, is very popular, and variants of the expression have been employed by many notable figures in history. The concept (of the importance of brevity and editing in writing) has also been assigned to some prominent individuals, without adequate factual support.

[Malabarista]

i am in lock down and in an attempt to educate myself i have spent almost an hour trying to even understand the question ( even after having been given the answer). So i am going back up my mobile tower to continue painting the soffits actually LESS educated than i was before i started my teabreak. Thanks![emoji106]

[Wotname]

Reminds me of
Never use a large word when a diminutive one will suffice

[Suijin]

This test points to a lack of curiosity about and engagement with the world in the general population. Few of the questions deal with material I learned in high school or college.

The results for high school graduates are sorta scary with the average score being around 50%. Interestingly, the specific questions that they did better on have had more media coverage over the years.

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by StuM

So were you taught to "use fewer for countable things" when you were fewer than 10 years old?
Do you fill the petrol tank when you have fewer than two gallons left?

Oh Stu. You're trying to make sense out of the most illogical, convoluted language on earth? A language where reed and read are pronounced the same or red and read are pronounced the same or threw and through? What about unionized (having a union) or UNionized meaning a substance that has not formed ions?

In the case of liquids I think it might be interpreted either (and how do you prefer to pronounce that one, EE ther or EYE ther, the later often considered somewhat pretentious in the states) way. Since your petrol example enumerates the number of gallons then fewer would be correct but when referring to the whole one would more correctly say less petrol (gasoline of course).

The age example is a little less clear. Certainly when referring to years in general one would say fewer years. I would say "the sails last fewer years when you use them a lot." When referring to the age of a person however as you worded the example using fewer doesn't sound right. As I think about it, that example may be interpreted like a mathematical statement. Writing 7<10 is correctly read as 7 is less than 10 because in this case the 7 is not used as a count of individual items but a single fixed quantity.

Would you say when I'm 70 years old I have less years to live than I did when I was 10?

If you haven't yet figured it out, I do enjoy exploring the absurdities of the English language.

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by GordMay

You're in good company.
“I have made this longer than usual because I have not had time to make it shorter.” ~ Blaise Pascal
“I have already made this paper too long, for which I must crave pardon, not having now time to make it shorter.” ~ Benjamin Franklin
The notion that it takes longer to compose concise remarks, than it does to be verbose, is very popular, and variants of the expression have been employed by many notable figures in history. The concept (of the importance of brevity and editing in writing) has also been assigned to some prominent individuals, without adequate factual support.

The people you cited understood the dynamics of epistemology better than you and would recognize that for some reason epistemology can't be explained briefly. Too brief=mystical; too long=stack overflow to the linear logic mind types (sorry, no offense). Oh but wait, some guy got a Nobel for explaining why epistemology can't be explained briefly.

We've got a pandemic going on, great human and economic cost, nonetheless people can't communicate the most simple things. Some people, scientists you might say, will ask "hey, what's the underlying malfunction in thought/communication here?" They'd do this not to play word games, but rather so as to endeavor how to reduce death/waste/etc.

In other words if you're going to start a thread on "knowing" and "science"...nevermind.

[Lazy1]

Got 11/11 but I think the results will get more attention than the quiz, not all wanted.

[SeanPatrick]

Originally Posted by Buzzman

I'm one who doesn't support the notion of 'free speech' for this reason.

If we aren't allowed to talk about Hitler, or the Holocaust, then they should not be allowed to talk about their 'magical sky man', and climate change deniers would be pilloried and held up to the riducule they truly deserved.

A perfect example of why freedom of speech is so important.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Buzzman

.....If we aren't allowed to talk about Hitler, or the Holocaust, then they should not be allowed to talk about their 'magical sky man', and climate change deniers would be pilloried and held up to the riducule they truly deserved......

Careful. Some of those "climate change deniers" are on this thread.