The average scientific literacy rates of MLPF

[LZRD WZRD 1,929]

I'd love to see a quiz like this on here asking about evolution and theories vs laws etc. If Science Advocate thought THESE scores were disappointing....

[paradoxical 1,735]

I got 8/13 but compared to the people here I feel dumb :/

Is the fact that I'm just starting HS count as a good excuse?

Probably not, but might as well try!

 

No excuse neccesary, you're probably not "dumb" at all.  We all have our strengths and weaknesses.  If I could figure out my marketable strengths well enough I'd probably have a job.  You may do much better in that field than I.

I think the quiz was generally focused on post HS though.

 

Hey did anybody get the bonus question about what my avitar's cutie mark means?

Edited July 17, 2014 by paradoxical

[websterhamster 203]

I am more scientifically literate than 93% of the population.

 

[truth is life 76]

13/13. I should hope so, since IRL I am a physicist who is also a big space and geology nerd. That pretty much covers all the bases!

[BronyPony 575]

I'd love to see a quiz like this on here asking about evolution and theories vs laws etc. If Science Advocate thought THESE scores were disappointing....

It would be interesting to have a poll about what people know about Evolution(the common misconception that it is about adaption).

[websterhamster 203]

I'd love to see a quiz like this on here asking about evolution and theories vs laws etc. If Science Advocate thought THESE scores were disappointing....

The questions were based on observable, provable science, aka scientific laws. Evolution is not provable in the same way and is more subjective. There are alternate theories about evolution that are just as logically feasible.

[Arctic Night 884]

The questions were based on observable, provable science, aka scientific laws. Evolution is not provable in the same way and is more subjective. There are alternate theories about evolution that are just as logically feasible.

I'd like to see this thread not end up in the debate pit, thank you. Also, you sort of proved his point, no offense.

[LZRD WZRD 1,929]

Here's a great question about evolution: What did humans evolve from?

 

I wonder how many would say monkeys, neanderthals, or none (god/ancient aliens made us)

 

 

The questions were based on observable, provable science, aka scientific laws. Evolution is not provable in the same way and is more subjective. There are alternate theories about evolution that are just as logically feasible.

But evolution has been proven and observed so I'm not sure what you mean Edited July 17, 2014 by LZRD WZRD

[BronyPony 575]

But evolution has been proven and observed so I'm not sure what you mean

I think he means it is less observable on an instant scale. I can see that the sky is blue because it constantly is blue due to certain properties. However, if given a function lim x->0 n/x, it would become infinity, but it is not directly observable unless the concepts are understood correctly.

[LZRD WZRD 1,929]

I think he means it is less observable on an instant scale. I can see that the sky is blue because it constantly is blue due to certain properties. However, if given a function lim x->0 n/x, it would become infinity, but it is not directly observable unless the concepts are understood correctly.

I know, but evolution has quite literally been observed. There are numerous accounts of this (species becoming another species) and they can be found right here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

[BronyPony 575]

I know, but evolution has quite literally been observed. There are numerous accounts of this (species becoming another species) and they can be found right here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

You don't know if an animal has evolved over time unless there are fossil records and geographical analysis, which aren't simply observed unless found. Again, the sky is blue, but I can't see if there is Nitrogen or Helium in the atmosphere unless direct experimentation is done.

[LZRD WZRD 1,929]

You don't know if an animal has evolved over time unless there are fossil records and geographical analysis, which aren't simply observed unless found. Again, the sky is blue, but I can't see if there is Nitrogen or Helium in the atmosphere unless direct experimentation is done.

Wait wait wait. Did you look at the link I posted? People have literally observed generations of species changing to a point where new individuals can no longer reproduce with the original species (and hence a new species).

[BronyPony 575]

Wait wait wait. Did you look at the link I posted? People have literally observed generations of species changing to a point where new individuals can no longer reproduce with the original species (and hence a new species).

I read the link, and you are completely skipping my whole point. These other species have to be discovered before any conclusions can be made, hence why people may not have a complete understanding of evolution. Again and again I say, the sky is blue, but a person can't know what exists in our atmosphere by simply looking at it. Experimentation has to be done to determine what makes up our atmosphere. I am not arguing that evolution isn't true. 

[WilsonWilson 11]

13 that seems pretty good. Then again I just finished GCSE science which is an advantage! 

[IceeBrony 251]

13/13

...and yet I'm still trying to figure out all the nuances of my new comp

[LZRD WZRD 1,929]

I read the link, and you are completely skipping my whole point. These other species have to be discovered before any conclusions can be made, hence why people may not have a complete understanding of evolution. Again and again I say, the sky is blue, but a person can't know what exists in our atmosphere by simply looking at it. Experimentation has to be done to determine what makes up our atmosphere. I am not arguing that evolution isn't true.

I understand, but that's not what he was talking about. He was saying that evolution could not be proven and had not been observed. Not, observed as in you look at animals and you know they're evolved, but rather observation like: we separated these two species and 20 years later the two populations can't breed with each other. I think there was just a misunderstanding about what we were talking about

Edited July 17, 2014 by LZRD WZRD

[BronyPony 575]

I understand, but that's not what he was talking about. He was saying that evolution could not be proven and had not been observed. Not, observed as in you look at animals and you know they're evolved, but rather observation like: we separated these two species and 20 years later the two populations can't breed with each other. I think there was just a misunderstanding about what we were talking about

I thought we were talking about long term and short term observations. 

 

All well. Oops? 

[Yellow Diamond 7,564]

I got 12 out of 13 correct -- not bad for a Liberal Arts student.

 

 

The one I got incorrect had to do with the composition of the Earth's atmosphere.

 

[BronyPony 575]

I got 12 out of 13 correct -- not bad for a Liberal Arts student.

 

 

The one I got incorrect had to do with the composition of the Earth's atmosphere.

 

That one question I knew people would get wrong because I feel a majority of public schools don't teach it, unfortunately.

[LZRD WZRD 1,929]

I thought we were talking about long term and short term observations.

 

All well. Oops?

Yeah I don't even know what we were going on about, we're both on the same side anyway lol

[IceeBrony 251]

That one question I knew people would get wrong because I feel a majority of public schools don't teach it, unfortunately.

Wait... public schools don't teach that? That seems almost impossible...

[BronyPony 575]

Wait... public schools don't teach that? That seems almost impossible...

I don't know if they do or not. The school I went to didn't. All they taught about was the different layers of the atmosphere, not their composition.

[Zygen 6,065]

I got 12/13, And I'm just getting to be a junior, so I still haven't taken Chemistry ;p.

 

Although my perfectionist nature still leads me to be kinda displeased I didn't ace this.

 

But whatever, guess compared to the average American I am more versed in my scientific knowledge.

 

I'm an above average American .

 

I have no idea where I'm going with this ;p. It seems like the majority of MLPF scored pretty well however.

[I used to be a stranger 7,989]

The only question I got wrong was about sunscreen. Which is understandable in my mind since A. I nearly never use sunscreen and B. the Sun's light is a source of energy on all bandwidths, above and below Radio, X-Ray, Infrared, Ultraviolet and other radiations.

[BronyPony 575]

The only question I got wrong was about sunscreen. Which is understandable in my mind since A. I nearly never use sunscreen and B. the Sun's light is a source of energy on all bandwidths, above and below Radio, X-Ray, Infrared, Ultraviolet and other radiations.

Sorry to say, but the radiation of the Sun is not its source of energy. It's power source is the fusion of hydrogen atoms to produce helium atoms. And, the radiation that is emitted is infrared and ultraviolet electromagnetic radiation.

 

EDIT: And since infrared radiation isn't harmful in any fashion that I know of, the only conclusion is sun screen is used to block out ultraviolet electromagnetic radiation.

Edited July 17, 2014 by BronyPony