Difference between revisions of "Scientific literacy"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(more liberal deception) |
(links) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
For some people, it's perfectly acceptable to be fully conversant with a scientific theory and yet reject it, either on scientific grounds alone or because of religious reasons. However, for some other people, rejection of a scientific theory is tantamount to [[ignorance]]; these people imply that only someone who is unaware of the facts or fails to understand them could possibly draw different conclusions. | For some people, it's perfectly acceptable to be fully conversant with a scientific theory and yet reject it, either on scientific grounds alone or because of religious reasons. However, for some other people, rejection of a scientific theory is tantamount to [[ignorance]]; these people imply that only someone who is unaware of the facts or fails to understand them could possibly draw different conclusions. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Links== | ||
| + | *[http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/04/evolution-big-bang-polls-omitted.html Evolution, Big Bang Polls Omitted From NSF Report] | ||
Revision as of 16:26, April 9, 2010
Scientific literacy is variously described as being up to date on what scientists say on important topics as well as accepting those views. Thus there is a controversy, where the word "literacy" is stretched to include both having knowledge of a theory and making the decision to agree with it.
For some people, it's perfectly acceptable to be fully conversant with a scientific theory and yet reject it, either on scientific grounds alone or because of religious reasons. However, for some other people, rejection of a scientific theory is tantamount to ignorance; these people imply that only someone who is unaware of the facts or fails to understand them could possibly draw different conclusions.