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.

[WinePusher]

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".

Not sure what you mean. You said that someone who is in fact scientifically illiterate would be able to answer these three questions. This suggests to me that we have different understandings of what scientific illiteracy is.

To me, someone who is scientifically illiterate is just someone who knows nothing about science. If someone is able to correctly answer those three physics problems then they, by definition, are not scientifically illiterate. Apparently you disagree, so explain what you think scientific illiteracy entails.

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.

Well, if you're going to be making fun of other people and putting down their education then I would expect you to have a somewhat sophisticated understanding of science. A sophisticated understanding of science requires math, calculus specifically, so to the two debaters mentioned in the OP, please show that you have a sophisticated understanding of science. If you don't, then stop putting other people down.

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?

I agree that it's arbitrary. There's no objective standard that determines what scientific literacy is.

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

Yes, to find velocity given the position of an object you just differentiate the position function. Derivatives are 'integral' to calculus. And for the work problem I chose you really only need to do basic multiplication since the force was constant. However, more advanced work problems involving a variable force require integration.

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.

Generally students are not taught calculus until their last year of high school, and usually these are only the gifted students.

However, if your understanding of science requires only basic algebra you have no right to make fun of the education of others. The only time when you would be even remotely justified to put down other people's scientific understanding is if you can demonstrate expertise in the subject being discussed.

[WinePusher]

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.

The direction that the projectile was shot was specified in the problem. Upward is a direction, making the quantity a vector (velocity) not a scalar (speed). If you have a problem with the wording then you'll have to take it up with the authors of my calculus text. I didn't make these problems up, they came out of Calculus of a Single Variable by Ron Larson, 10th edition.

[Ancient of Years]

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.

The direction that the projectile was shot was specified in the problem. Upward is a direction, making the quantity a vector (velocity) not a scalar (speed). If you have a problem with the wording then you'll have to take it up with the authors of my calculus text. I didn't make these problems up, they came out of Calculus of a Single Variable by Ron Larson, 10th edition.

Artillery shells go upward, but hopefully not straight up. Long ago I was involved with artillery trajectories, where aerodynamics is definitely a factor BTW, so I probably get more nit-picky than necessary about things going up and down.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 11 by WinePusher]

No, to calculate the velocity (as ancient of years indicated) with a constant acceleration (with both being linear) doesn't require using the position function. Well, I suppose the question indicates you're supposed to in this case, but there's a constant downwards acceleration of g m/s (presumably 9.8 in the question).
You could use a simple suvat equation (v=u+at) if you didn't already recognise the 'motions' of the question itself. Differentiating the position function given will give you this. (v=u+at, u being v0 and a being -g).


As I indicated before, you get 10 years of science education pre-calculus. You can learn plenty about science without knowing calculus. You can still know scientific knowledge without understanding the maths.

I can imagine there being an expert in archaeology, astronomy, biology, etc being unable to answer one of the questions. Obviously, there are elements of each of those fields that entail mathematics, but by no means does a detailed understanding require mathematics.

[WinePusher]

No, to calculate the velocity (as ancient of years indicated) with a constant acceleration (with both being linear) doesn't require using the position function.

What are you talking about? You have it backwards. If you want to find velocity using an acceleration function you take an indefinite integral of the acceleration function. This is because acceleration is the derivative of velocity, so if you're trying to find velocity given acceleration you do the opposite of differentiation, which is integration.

For example, given the acceleration function a(t)=-32 ft/sec^2 solve the following problem. A ball is thrown upward (vertically) from a height of 6 ft with an initial velocity of 60 ft/sec. What is the maximum height of the ball.

Solution:

First, attain the velocity function by anti-differentiating the acceleration function with respect to time.
∫-32dt=-32tdt + C

Second, replace the arbitrary constant C with the initial velocity, 60.
v(t)=(-32t + 60)dt

Third, attain the position function by anti-differentiating the velocity function.
∫(-32t+60)dt=(-32*t^2/2)+60t+C
s(t)=-16t^2+60t+C

Fourth, replace the arbitrary constant with the position of the ball, 6.
s(t)=-16t^2+60t+6

Fifth, in order to find the maximum value the velocity function attains find the critical numbers of the function. Or in otherwords, set the function equal to 0 and solve for t.

-32t+60=0
-32t=-60
t=60/32 or 1.875

Sixth, plug this value into the position function to find the highest position of the ball.
s(1.875)=-16(1.875)^2 + 60(1.875) + 6 = 62.25 feet.

As I indicated before, you get 10 years of science education pre-calculus. You can learn plenty about science without knowing calculus. You can still know scientific knowledge without understanding the maths.

You seem to be avoiding my point. If you're going to be making fun of other people and putting down their education then I would expect you to have a somewhat sophisticated understanding of science. A sophisticated understanding of science requires math, calculus specifically, so to the two debaters mentioned in the OP, please show that you have a sophisticated understanding of science. If you don't, then stop putting other people down. Btw, I'm not speaking to you specifically. I'm speaking to any of these nontheists who make condescending remarks about Christian's scientific literacy. Do you support the practice of berating other people's scientific understanding?

I can imagine there being an expert in archaeology, astronomy, biology, etc being unable to answer one of the questions. Obviously, there are elements of each of those fields that entail mathematics, but by no means does a detailed understanding require mathematics.

Archaeology isn't a natural science. And a sophisticated understanding of biology and astronomy would absolutely require knowledge of calculus. In fact, a bachelor of science degree in any of the sciences, whether they be the natural or social sciences, requires knowledge of basic calculus. If you don't have a sophisticated understanding of science, don't talk down to other people.

[Bust Nak]

A ball is thrown upward (vertically) from a height of 6 ft with an initial velocity of 60 ft/sec. What is the maximum height of the ball.

That's a different type of question to the one in the OP. Your original question asks for velocity instead of height, and does not require any differentiation or integration.

And neither does your new question for that matter:

V^2 = U^2 + 2as

(V^2 - U^2) / 2a = s

Substitute your values, V = 0, U = 60, a = -32 you get 56.25, add in the initial 6ft you get 62.25ft.

Now for the actual meat of your topic:

but you can't deny that many nontheists on this forum berate and deride Christians for their supposed lack of scientific knowledge.

Having taken an active part in many such conversations, I would say where any berating or deriding actually happens, it is direct to a particular Christian (typically, a creationist) who made a scientific gaffe. Where it is generalised to Christians, we are careful enough to a) acknowledge not all Christians are like that, b) provide support re: studies of education level with religiosity.

[WinePusher]

A ball is thrown upward (vertically) from a height of 6 ft with an initial velocity of 60 ft/sec. What is the maximum height of the ball.

That's a different type of question to the one in the OP. Your original question asks for velocity instead of height, and does not require any differentiation or integration.

Yea, it is a different question. The reason why I presented this new question was to show Jashwell that in order to find velocity given an acceleration function you integrate the acceleration function. Similarly, in order to find the position function given velocity you integrate the velocity function. This is how actual students of physics are taught to solve kinematics problems. This is the methodology presented in calculus and calculus based physics textbooks. I suppose you can solve motion problems using your own individual method and arrive at the same answer, and that's the beauty of math and science. Different routes and different techniques, if applied correctly, will give you the same answer.

but you can't deny that many nontheists on this forum berate and deride Christians for their supposed lack of scientific knowledge.

Having taken an active part in many such conversations, I would say where any berating or deriding actually happens, it is direct to a particular Christian (typically, a creationist) who made a scientific gaffe.

Denying the big bang or evolution is not a scientific gaffe. It's called a disagreement, and you don't really have any right to make fun of someone's education just because you disagree with them. I also ask that you look at the two quotes in my OP and tell me if those comments were justified or not. I believe they would be somewhat justified if the comments came from an actual science expert. But the two nontheists who made those condescending remarks in the OP haven't demonstrated any expertise in science.

[Jashwell]

No, to calculate the velocity (as ancient of years indicated) with a constant acceleration (with both being linear) doesn't require using the position function.

What are you talking about? You have it backwards. If you want to find velocity using an acceleration function you take an indefinite integral of the acceleration function. This is because acceleration is the derivative of velocity, so if you're trying to find velocity given acceleration you do the opposite of differentiation, which is integration.

Perhaps you misunderstood what I meant by linear. I meant linear motion. Constant acceleration produces linear motion, i.e. motion on a line. I did not mean the acceleration was a linear function.

A CONSTANT acceleration can be indicated in the following form:
a(t) = k
Where k is a constant (e.g. -g)

Integrating by t gives:
v(t) = kt + v0 (or u)
v(t) = u + kt

Recall that acceleration, a, is constant in this case, and hence unaffected by time. As such, why refer to it as a function?
v(t) = u + at

In these kinds of equations - constant motion - the variable v is usually used to mean the velocity after some elapsed time. t is usually used to indicate that time.
They're called SUVAT equations because they're a set of simple equations that use the variables S (displacement) U (initial velocity) V (final velocity) A (acceleration) T (elapsed time).

ALL that one needs to know for these constant acceleration problems is the set of SUVAT equations and the ability to re-arrange (and calculate) equations.
In this specific example, it's very intuitive to just know v=u+at.

As I indicated before, you get 10 years of science education pre-calculus. You can learn plenty about science without knowing calculus. You can still know scientific knowledge without understanding the maths.

You seem to be avoiding my point. If you're going to be making fun of other people and putting down their education then I would expect you to have a somewhat sophisticated understanding of science. A sophisticated understanding of science requires math, calculus specifically, so to the two debaters mentioned in the OP, please show that you have a sophisticated understanding of science. If you don't, then stop putting other people down. Btw, I'm not speaking to you specifically. I'm speaking to any of these nontheists who make condescending remarks about Christian's scientific literacy. Do you support the practice of berating other people's scientific understanding?

I don't see how that's missing the point at all. I don't think most who've received a (successful) 10 year science education are scientifically illiterate, and yet most of them haven't done calculus.

I can imagine there being an expert in archaeology, astronomy, biology, etc being unable to answer one of the questions. Obviously, there are elements of each of those fields that entail mathematics, but by no means does a detailed understanding require mathematics.

Archaeology isn't a natural science. And a sophisticated understanding of biology and astronomy would absolutely require knowledge of calculus. In fact, a bachelor of science degree in any of the sciences, whether they be the natural or social sciences, requires knowledge of basic calculus. If you don't have a sophisticated understanding of science, don't talk down to other people.

Archeology is a science that you can presumably be illiterate in (I'd say that, in the field of Archeology, I'm scientifically illiterate).

To me, being scientifically illiterate implies a lack of understanding of the findings of science - not a lack of understanding of the methods of science (or even the overall methodology that is science). To what extent I'd refer to someone as illiterate in science, I've no idea. I'd probably say that it's field specific.

There are plenty of individual scientific fields I know virtually nothing about.

Knowledge of biology and astronomy doesn't universally require calculus. You can be a doctor and not know calculus, but a doctor is highly literate in parts of biology and the findings thereof. You can discuss the implications of recent rocket launches without understanding calculus.

[Ancient of Years]

[Replying to post 18 by Jashwell]
For a problem like this I do not need equations at all. Everything is linear - acceleration and direction (purely vertical).

What is speed and distance traveled after 5 seconds?

Speed starts at 120 m/s
Acceleration is -9.8 m/s
Elapsed time is 5 seconds

Reduction in speed is 5 times 9.8 = 49 (half of 98)
120 minus 49 is 71
Average speed is 120 + 71 over 2 = 95.5
95.5 times 5 is 477.5

Do not need a calculator or spreadsheet for that last number
95.5 times 5 is half of 955
Half of 900 is 450
Half of 50 is 25
Half of 5 is 2.5
450 plus 25 pus 2.5 is 477.5

For 10 seconds
Reduction in speed is 9.8 times 10 is 98
120 minus 98 is 22
Average speed is 120 + 22 over 2 = 71
71 times 10 is 710

All in your head stuff.


PS The nuns used to get really pissed when I wrote the answer on the board at the bottom and then showed the work afterward.

[WinePusher]

No, to calculate the velocity (as ancient of years indicated) with a constant acceleration (with both being linear) doesn't require using the position function.

What are you talking about? You have it backwards. If you want to find velocity using an acceleration function you take an indefinite integral of the acceleration function. This is because acceleration is the derivative of velocity, so if you're trying to find velocity given acceleration you do the opposite of differentiation, which is integration.

Perhaps you misunderstood what I meant by linear. I meant linear motion. Constant acceleration produces linear motion, i.e. motion on a line. I did not mean the acceleration was a linear function.

I'm not even sure what we're arguing about anymore. I posted a basic motion problem requiring calculus to solve it. What exactly do you take issue with?

Also, you said 'to calculate velocity with a constant acceleration doesn't require using the position function.' Where did I say it did? The problem asks for you to calculate velocity over an elapsed period of time given the position of the projectile. If I asked you to calculate velocity given acceleration you would have to integrate the acceleration function. Do disagree with any of this?

You seem to be avoiding my point. If you're going to be making fun of other people and putting down their education then I would expect you to have a somewhat sophisticated understanding of science. A sophisticated understanding of science requires math, calculus specifically, so to the two debaters mentioned in the OP, please show that you have a sophisticated understanding of science. If you don't, then stop putting other people down. Btw, I'm not speaking to you specifically. I'm speaking to any of these nontheists who make condescending remarks about Christian's scientific literacy. Do you support the practice of berating other people's scientific understanding?

I don't see how that's missing the point at all. I don't think most who've received a (successful) 10 year science education are scientifically illiterate, and yet most of them haven't done calculus.

Um, what does this have to do with my point? Is it ok, in your view, to berate and insult the intelligence of Christians on this site by saying stuff like 'you know nothing of science.' Yes or no?