Questioning People's Scientific Literacy

[WinePusher]

Whenever a thread is created about science, it always seems that the nontheists on this board will disparage theists and claim that they have an inadequate scientific education. Here are just two examples I've come across in the past couple of days:

You don't understand the science you want to talk about.

You know nothing of science.

There are many more examples of this. There are also many examples of nontheists claiming that theists deny science and get their science education from church. Now, the scientific topics that are often debated here involve the big bang and evolution. Both of these topics are often taught in upper level university physics and biology courses and require much background knowledge.

Here are several basic physics problems that one should already know before discussing advanced topics like the big bang:

A Motion Problem: A projectile is shot upward from the surface of the Earth with an initial velocity of 120 meters per second. What is its velocity after 5 seconds and 10 seconds? Use the following position function to do the calculations: s(t)=-4.9t^2+Vot+So

A Related Rates Problem: The radius (r) of a circle is increasing at a rate of 4 centimeters per minute. Find the rate of change when r=8 centimeters and r=32 centimeters. Hint: the area of a circle is given by the equation A=Ï€r^2

A Work Problem: A force of 112 newtons is required to slide a cement block of 8 meters in a construction project. What is the work done by the constant force? Also, what is the physical quantity for newtons per meter? Hint: work is equal to force times displacement, W=F(D).

I'd invite all these non-theists who always make fun of Christians for being scientifically illiterate to answer these three basic science questions.

[Ancient of Years]

A Motion Problem: A projectile is shot upward from the surface of the Earth with an initial velocity of 120 meters per second. What is its velocity after 5 seconds and 10 seconds? Use the following position function to do the calculations: s(t)=-4.9t^2+Vot+So

The question is about velocity, not position. Properly speaking it should be about speed since velocity is a vector, not a scalar. I will presume the projectile is shot vertically. Also, since the projectile is being shot upward from the surface of the Earth, aerodynamic resistance should be a factor. But that would require knowing the frontal area, coefficient of drag, and mass of the projectile plus a presumption about the density of the air. (If we wanted to get really picky we could ask where on the surface of the Earth this is happening to determine the precise value of g. But nobody does that…)

Speed after 5 seconds: 71 m/s
Speed after 10 seconds: 22 m/s

Position after 5 seconds: +477.5 meters
Position after 10 seconds: +710 meters

Let’s see who else had a decent education. Anyone?


BTW I have never made fun of anyone or otherwise berated them for lack of scientific knowledge. If I happen to know better, I try to explain it. But there are those who intentionally deny the validity of well-established science on no grounds other than misplaced literalistic interpretation of scriptures. That is another matter entirely.

[WinePusher]

BTW I have never made fun of anyone or otherwise berated them for lack of scientific knowledge. If I happen to know better, I try to explain it. But there are those who intentionally deny the validity of well-established science on no grounds other than misplaced literalistic interpretation of scriptures. That is another matter entirely.

You may not have, but you can't deny that many nontheists on this forum berate and deride Christians for their supposed lack of scientific knowledge. Well, here's a chance for them to show that they know more about science than the typical Christian does.

And for the motion problem, assume that there is no air resistance. These problems are meant to be as simple as possible. And yes, the problem is about velocity. The way you calculate velocity given time is by differentiating the position function with respect to time.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 1 by WinePusher]

Aren't these mainly maths problems? (The first and third are ostensibly kinematics, the first and second are plausibly* rates of change or calculus.)

I can see someone scientifically illiterate answering all three.
Plus, I'd say that nobody is literate in every field of science, and being unable to answer three physics/maths questions doesn't make you scientifically illiterate, it doesn't even necessarily mean you're illiterate at the part of the field in question.

[Ancient of Years]

BTW I have never made fun of anyone or otherwise berated them for lack of scientific knowledge. If I happen to know better, I try to explain it. But there are those who intentionally deny the validity of well-established science on no grounds other than misplaced literalistic interpretation of scriptures. That is another matter entirely.

You may not have, but you can't deny that many nontheists on this forum berate and deride Christians for their supposed lack of scientific knowledge. Well, here's a chance for them to show that they know more about science than the typical Christian does.

And for the motion problem, assume that there is no air resistance. These problems are meant to be as simple as possible. And yes, the problem is about velocity. The way you calculate velocity given time is by differentiating the position function with respect to time.

After long experience on various forums, I tend to keep away from 'science and religion' type debates. It does not seem to matter what I say or what evidence of reasoning I present, I usually get ignored. And have even been Ignored.

As far as the motion problem goes, it becomes a velocity problem when a specific direction is specified. 'Upward' is ambiguous. "Vertical' is precise and crucially important to the problem.

[Bust Nak]

Use the following position function to do the calculations: s(t)=-4.9t^2+Vot+So

Why not V=U+at instead?

Find the rate of change when r=8 centimeters and r=32 centimeters.

Trick question? It says 4 centimeters per minute right there in the question! The rate of change area on the other hand is 2Ï€r * 4.

What is the work done by the constant force?

112*8=896J

Also, what is the physical quantity for newtons per meter?

As in what is measured in Newton per meter? Stiffness?

[bluethread]

I'd say that nobody is literate in every field of science, and being unable to answer three physics/maths questions doesn't make you scientifically illiterate, it doesn't even necessarily mean you're illiterate at the part of the field in question.

This, I think, is the point of the OP. When a theist says something that an atheist may consider to be scientifically inaccurate, even when the point is not related to science directly, the atheist implies, if not outright states, that the theist is totally ignorant. Though contesting the assertion as inaccurate is to be expected, the hyperbolic implication could be seen as lacking in civility. Consider a similar response from a theist regarding an atheist's knowledge of the Scriptures. It might be acceptable to say that the atheist does not understand the passage or issue being discussed, but to say that the atheist knows nothing about the Scriptures is over the top.

[WinePusher]

Aren't these mainly maths problems? (The first and third are ostensibly kinematics, the first and second are plausibly* rates of change or calculus.)

They're physics problems that require knowledge of single variable differential calculus. The reason why I asked these math intensive questions is that only people who actually have had training in math and science will be able to answer them. Had I asked a biology question like, name and describe three organelles in eukaryotic cells, or to name and describe the 4 macromolecules, people could just google the answers.

I can see someone scientifically illiterate answering all three.

Really, then explain what you think it means to be scientifically illiterate. Is someone scientifically illiterate just cause they don't agree with your opinions and worldview?

Plus, I'd say that nobody is literate in every field of science, and being unable to answer three physics/maths questions doesn't make you scientifically illiterate, it doesn't even necessarily mean you're illiterate at the part of the field in question.

Yea, it kind of does. You can't claim to be scientifically literate if you can't even do basic single variable calculus. And you certainly shouldn't be berating other people if you can't work these three basic problems.

[Jashwell]

I can see someone scientifically illiterate answering all three.

Really, then explain what you think it means to be scientifically illiterate. Is someone scientifically illiterate just cause they don't agree with your opinions and worldview?

? I don't see how anyone could possibly turn "three maths-heavy simple kinematic physics questions doesn't make you scientifically illiterate" into "everyone who disagrees is illiterate".

'Scientifically illiterate' isn't a particularly good phrase - illiteracy is a plausible term, because all you need to be literate is the ability to read/write. It's one thing with unwavering standards. Science is a broad subject with (at least) hundreds of branching fields, not all of which depend on maths ability at all, let alone kinematic specific questions.

How do you decide what scientific literacy is? A minimum score in some fields? An understanding of the principles of science? An average score? How many tests would people have to take?

Unless someone knows effectively nothing about the way the world works, I wouldn't call them scientifically illiterate.

Plus, I'd say that nobody is literate in every field of science, and being unable to answer three physics/maths questions doesn't make you scientifically illiterate, it doesn't even necessarily mean you're illiterate at the part of the field in question.

Yea, it kind of does. You can't claim to be scientifically literate if you can't even do basic single variable calculus. And you certainly shouldn't be berating other people if you can't work these three basic problems.

Would you need to understand ANY basic single variable calculus to answer the first or third question?

I'm unaware of how it works in America, but in the UK we tend to have 10 years of being taught science (including physics) before we're taught any calculus.

[Ancient of Years]

I'm unaware of how it works in America, but in the UK we tend to have 10 years of being taught science (including physics) before we're taught any calculus.

That is the way I was taught in America. That was quite some time ago but I doubt that it has changed.

BTW the first problem, which I addressed above, does not require calculus. I did it in my head with just plain arithmetic.