How science literate are you?

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101
I am truly beginning to believe that the sole purpose of these types of 'scientific ' quizzes is simply to build a smokescreen around question 7 so as to brainwash it into the unsuspecting masses. I'm sorry but this is the second quiz ive taken where a question on evolution props up in a quiz when it is not a law only a theory. Im sick and tired of these tactics.

Since this line of reasoning is something that seems to be repeated quite often, would you be so kind as to expand on the differences between a scientific law and a scientific theory? Do you actually know the difference? Why exactly do you seem to believe that a "law" takes precedence over a theory? Why is the one, to you, more definitive than the other when the 2 terms are used to define different aspects of the same phenomena? In science, laws are a starting place, not the end point. In general, a scientific law is the description of an observed phenomenon. It doesn't explain why the phenomenon exists or what causes it. The explanation of the phenomenon is called a scientific theory. Basically, the difference between them is that a law describes what you are seeing while the theory describes WHY something does what you see it do. If the description explains 'why" then it is indeed a theory, if it merely describes an observable phenomena then its a law. One example would be to consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened. So long story short... attempting to utilize the disclaimer that "it's just a theory not a law"is just dumb. Especially when you don't actually bother to look into what the differences between the two terms actually are.

originally posted by: swanne
This is a ridiculously basic quiz. A ten-years old would score 11/11 on it.

My 14 year old got all correct.

Is it possible that the people who were asked are just thick?

a reply to: DJW001

No, its the doing of the Federal Government

a reply to: paraphi

Its likely that people who asked either weren't paying attention and missed one every here and there, or they were making a stand on religious grounds (or some other conspiracy), and answering the question in a way they knew would be scored wrong.

Certainly there are idiots amongst us. I know a guy with an IQ of 80 that is clinically diagnosed as MR. He is high functioning, has a good job with a family and the deed to a sweet piece of land. He knows how long it takes the Earth to go around the sun....just to give some context.

originally posted by: ketsuko
chronicle.com...

I got them all.

Given the popularity of Big Bang Theory, I thought number 5 was surprising.

I got them all except #5.
It wasn't an explosion that created the Universe.
An explosion is what? ... and requires what to occur?
An explosive force can't create velocities in excess of the speed of light...
... nor can it warp time and space.
So "false" would've been the correct answer, but that is wrong according to them.

originally posted by: paradoxious

originally posted by: ketsuko
chronicle.com...

I got them all.

Given the popularity of Big Bang Theory, I thought number 5 was surprising.

I got them all except #5.
It wasn't an explosion that created the Universe.
An explosion is what? ... and requires what to occur?
An explosive force can't create velocities in excess of the speed of light...
... nor can it warp time and space.
So "false" would've been the correct answer, but that is wrong according to them.

I agree, but I understood the intent of the question. But, yeah -- Even going by what the Big bang Theory says, it was not really an explosion as much as a dramatic expansion.

It's questions like this (i.e., the inaccurate way that the question was worded) that perpetuates the "bad science" myth that the big bang was an explosion of matter into space; it was not. What the theory says is that it was a sudden expansion of space itself. Not just the stuff in space, but space, too.

I suppose in some respects it was like an explosion, because immediately after the Big Bang, the universe was an energetic hot mess of stuff. However, calling it an explosion makes it sound as if that stuff all radiated out from a center "point of explosion" -- but that's not how the Big Bang theory says it happened.

a reply to: paradoxious

When given a multiple choice question you pick the best available. They kept everything extremely simple so the layperson would understand also an explosion is a rapid expansion of energy.

I would bet there are many who don't get them all correct. Missing any should mean you didn't qualify to graduate from high school.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Those who failed purposely be it religious reasons or they just disagreed still failed.

They failed reading comprehension. They failed to understand that the quiz was to find out if they were scientifically literate it wasn't asking opinions or beliefs.


I guess they thought it was a poll.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Those who failed purposely be it religious reasons or they just disagreed still failed.

They failed reading comprehension. They failed to understand that the quiz was to find out if they were scientifically literate it wasn't asking opinions or beliefs.


I guess they thought it was a poll.

Exactly. If I were told I was taking a test on biblical literacy, and was asked "True or False -- The world and universe were crated in 6 days" I would answer "True", even though I do not necessarily believe that.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: paradoxious

When given a multiple choice question you pick the best available. They kept everything extremely simple so the layperson would understand also an explosion is a rapid expansion of energy.

The layperson would be wrong. An explosion is an expansion of volume, not energy. Just saying.

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

Serves me right for going by memory.

An explosion is a rapid increase in volume and release of energy in an extreme mannerlink

a reply to: Chadwickus

I got 10/11,

I think its pure speculation that we were not around with the dinosaurs.

a reply to: scubagravy

No, not really. The science is solid in that regard.

a reply to: swanne

should score 11/11. Should.

I got 11/11, but honestly I was expecting them to be somewhat more difficult. I am, in no way, scientifically adept. Yet I got a perfect score.

Some of the percentages are disturbing. Very disturbing.

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

Erin Gray makes molten metal seem cool by comparison.

I mean really...

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101
I am truly beginning to believe that the sole purpose of these types of 'scientific ' quizzes is simply to build a smokescreen around question 7 so as to brainwash it into the unsuspecting masses. I'm sorry but this is the second quiz ive taken where a question on evolution props up in a quiz when it is not a law only a theory. Im sick and tired of these tactics.

Since this line of reasoning is something that seems to be repeated quite often, would you be so kind as to expand on the differences between a scientific law and a scientific theory? Do you actually know the difference? Why exactly do you seem to believe that a "law" takes precedence over a theory? Why is the one, to you, more definitive than the other when the 2 terms are used to define different aspects of the same phenomena? In science, laws are a starting place, not the end point. In general, a scientific law is the description of an observed phenomenon. It doesn't explain why the phenomenon exists or what causes it. The explanation of the phenomenon is called a scientific theory. Basically, the difference between them is that a law describes what you are seeing while the theory describes WHY something does what you see it do. If the description explains 'why" then it is indeed a theory, if it merely describes an observable phenomena then its a law. One example would be to consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened. So long story short... attempting to utilize the disclaimer that "it's just a theory not a law"is just dumb. Especially when you don't actually bother to look into what the differences between the two terms actually are.

I see, well first let me address the reason I said what I said, and in what context:

I said - Evolution is not a law.

What is a law - it is a statement for a particular principle that is applicable to a phenomenon that always occurs. I.e. A law is a statement that has been consolidated by repeated successful testing.

I said - It is (Evolution) is a theory

You were correct in saying that a scientific theory is used to explain a phenomenon. I agree, and so does the dictionary and the rest of humanity.

And in this case, the theory of evolution is a reasonable explanation or assumption that lacks confirming proof. It is not however a phenomenon that is in anyway repeatable or observable, or backed by confirming proof.

This definition I used for a 'scientific theory' is sourced from a scientific dictionary:[Steen, 1971]

So what was I trying to say is that there is no confirming proof that ''Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals.'' as this process is not something that is observable, and CANNOT be proved unlike a law which can be proved as scientific law is a set of observed regularities that will ALWAYS occur when certain conditions are met, and CAN be observed.

Source for definition: Krimlsey, 1995

And with regards to reading comprehension, had the question asked me if the statement in question is a current theory, guess what? I would have answered TRUE. But as it stands, the statement put forward in question 7 makes it sound like it has already been confirmed. Sorry, it hasn't..

Now when you inspect the rest of the questions in this supposed quiz, the majority of them can be proved, and can be observed, repeatedly, and cannot be disputed either.

But hey, thanks for calling me dumb. I'm glad we have such mature conversationalists here on ATS.

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101

I said - It is (Evolution) is a theory

You were correct in saying that a scientific theory is used to explain a phenomenon. I agree, and so does the dictionary and the rest of humanity.

And in this case, the theory of evolution is a reasonable explanation or assumption that lacks confirming proof. It is not however a phenomenon that is in anyway repeatable or observable, or backed by confirming proof.

Wrong. There is no "proof" in science, only in math. A scientific theory does not become a scientific law once enough "proof" comes in. A scientific theory is the highest standard that can be achieved.

Theory > law

So what was I trying to say is that there is no confirming proof that ''Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals.'' as this process is not something that is observable, and CANNOT be proved unlike a law which can be proved as scientific law is a set of observed regularities that will ALWAYS occur when certain conditions are met, and CAN be observed.

Wrong. Scientific laws have nothing to do with proof. Here, the scientific definition of theory:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

en.wikipedia.org...

Scientific theories can contain scientific laws. Your idea that theories elevate to law status once they are "proved" is straight up incorrect.

a reply to: ISeekTruth101

Did you know that using the words "proof" and "proved" when talking about scientific literacy is a dead giveaway about your scientific literacy?

FYI that terminology is generally frowned upon with all scientific matters.


Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”

originally posted by: ketsuko
chronicle.com...

I got them all.

Given the popularity of Big Bang Theory, I thought number 5 was surprising.

It is incorrect.. the Big bang was not an Explosion... it was a sudden expansion of space-time. There was no space-time to explode.