Slashdot Mirror
Canada Tops List of Most Science-Literate Countries
An anonymous reader writes "A recent survey of scientific education and attitudes showed the Canadian population to have the highest level of scientific literacy in the world, as well as the fewest reservations about the direction of scientific progress (full report). A key factor is a high level of scientific knowledge among the general population (despite comparatively low numbers of people employed in STEM fields). Another is a higher level of comfort with choosing rationality over religious belief — only 25% of Canadians surveyed agreed with the statement "We depend too much on science and not enough on faith", as opposed to 55% in the U.S. and 38% in the E.U.
I also wonder if the vaunted Canadian healthcare system plays a role. When advances in medical science are something you automatically expect to benefit from personally if you need them, they look a lot better than when you have to scramble just to cover your bills for what we have now."
I also wonder if the vaunted Canadian healthcare system plays a role. When advances in medical science are something you automatically expect to benefit from personally if you need them, they look a lot better than when you have to scramble just to cover your bills for what we have now."
I am canadian, and if we are the most scientiically literate. I really pity the rest of you.
They think maple syrup grows on trees!
... when our government frequently tries neuter science in the name of their own personal beliefs:
http://www.academicmatters.ca/2013/05/harpers-attack-on-science-no-science-no-evidence-no-truth-no-democracy/
The current regime seems pretty anti-science though, unless it is directly related to increasing tar sands oil extraction efficiency? http://science.slashdot.org/st... http://news.slashdot.org/story...
An interesting read, but could have done without the flamebait healthcare stuff.
"Depend" on faith? "Depend" on faith? Do these people not eat food, drink water or drive vehicles?
Words fail me.
worship nanny state polices.
That's their religion. The 25% who rely on faith are praying they don't die before they get to the head of the queue*.
It looked like a pretty good summary until our fearless editor had to pull that healthcare stuff out of his ass.
*I live near the border and I can see all the wealthy Canadians bypass the socialized system by coming down here with cash.
Have gnu, will travel.
Wait, you mean the VA is not one of the best health care systems in the world?
I just watched the president on TV say that the "VA was one of the best healthcare systems in the world for those who can get in."
"[O]nly 25% of Canadians surveyed agreed with the statement "We depend too much on science and not enough on faith", as opposed to 55% in the U.S. and 38% in the E.U."
Seriously? I was expecting a survey of scientific literacy to be about, you know, scientific literacy, not asking people the relative merits, as it were, between science and religion.
I'm not sure how this proves, quote, "Canada is a nation of science geeks." It's a complete non-sequitor. It doesn't even match the data, in which 58% of Canadians couldn't understand basic science concepts from newspaper stories, and in which Canada ranks 19th out of 29th in science degrees (by percentage).
Contrawise, Americans, sure, value religion probably more highly than other countries, and might even think that we could use more religion, but that is not a question of scientific literacy or attitudes towards science in and of itself. It seems to presuppose the long-discredited Conflict Thesis, which states that religion and science are inherently always in conflict.
The clincher for me - which indisputably shows the authors' bias - is that Canada ranks #1 in people protesting GMOs and nuclear power, and the authors consider this a good sign that their population is scientifically literate!
The authors should get back to euphorically sniffing their own armpits, and stop pretending to be scientists. Or whatever you call the people that work at science museums.
Words fail me.
They certainly did.
No offense intended to any Canadians, I spent a good amount of time in Windsor when I lived in Michigan and long time family friends are from Windsor. Better beer than the US, and not much different than folks in the US (minus the "aboot time" and "eh", but we have people in the US with their own quirks).
The study is by the Council of Canadian Academies. An immediate question of bias should pop into your head with that little fact. There was exactly one person on the council not from Canada, who happened to be from London.
Where did Canada really rank #1 (p19)? 93% said they were interested in scientific discoveries and technological developments. Big whoop to that, I know lots of people believe "The Big Bang Theory" is where they should learn science. Interest levels help for sure, but if there is no market for scientists then they will have Big Bang for entertainment and learn jobs that are actually available. This brings us to their other number one.
#1 with tertiary education. Considering that they rank 22nd with the percentage of population working in science and technology, most of that tertiary education is _NOT_ in science or technology.
There are some very questionable measures overall, but we can skip those for now. I think the most telling is that the numbers they are comparing are to other countries from 2005 answers to similar questions. Discussing GMO today compared to 9 years ago is going to provide drastically different results in all countries (one example of a bad statistic). If you are doing a study and claiming you are now smarter than someone, at least test them at their current level too.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
yes that's a pretty accurate summary of our healthcare system.
At one point our healthcare was actually quite good, but that was some time ago. The government seems to think as long as it has a good reputation internationally its not really worth fixing.
Canadian health care has its problems, but it's still better than most of the alternatives.
However, the problem with public health care is that Canadians generally do not think about how their medical services are provided, and thus they are unaware of how much they cost, whether they are cost effective, and whether they represent the latest technological advances. The last point is why the summary's suggestion is laughable.
Canadian health care has its problems, but it's still better than most of the alternatives.
Better than, say, the health care systems in the UK, Germany, France, Spain, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Taiwan, etc.?
I also wonder if the vaunted Canadian healthcare system plays a role. When advances in medical science are something you automatically expect to benefit from personally if you need them, they look a lot better than when you have to scramble just to cover your bills for what we have now."
Or conversely, maybe when the government looks after your health you don't need to worry about researching it yourself, and you take it for granted and don't value it as much. But let's stir up a big argument about capitalism versus socialism.
They say
I also wonder if the vaunted Canadian healthcare system plays a role. When advances in medical science are something you automatically expect to benefit from personally if you need them, they look a lot better than when you have to scramble just to cover your bills for what we have now.
but it sounds as if they're comparing the Canadian system for paying for health care with the US system, as opposed to the systems used in for example, Western Europe.
I also wonder if the vaunted Canadian healthcare system plays a role.
There's nothing at all in the survey to make that connection.
*I live near the border and I can see all the wealthy Canadians bypass the socialized system by coming down here with cash.
Canada is not a jail. Rich fucks are free to spend their money on luxurious hospital. Canadian hospital are plain, but get the job done for everyone. Including the middle class, not just a rich fuck that travel in fascist* jet.
* Notice how I use a derogatory term in place of 'private' the same way you use 'socialized' instead of 'public' like any sane person would.
That man ordered irreplaceable scientific records be taken to the dump, destroying generations of scientific data. He's closed musea in order to build up fake War of 1812 war memorials. He's closed the scientific lakes project that was the programme responsible for identifying acid rain thanks to decades of data.
This man has been utterly destructive to Canada's intellectual property, its scientific pedigree and ability to generate new knowledge. Moreover, he's gagged scientists from discussing their own peer-revirewed data. Instead, political interns get to act as mouthpieces.
Anyone in the scientific or technical community can't help but see how destructive Harper-ism is to Canada's ability to create the next generation of knowledge.
---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
Better than, say, the health care systems in the UK, Germany, France, Spain, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Taiwan, etc.?
there are a lot of shitty developing countries with healthcare that's much worse, and there's the united states.
There are a good number with better healthcare than Canada no question, but the number of countries with much worse or none eclipses that list
Our health care system is pretty stressed out by all the average Americans sneaking up here and pretending to be Canadian so they can get some treatment. I pity the poor American who can't even afford to come up here.
Of course the wealthy people go to Cuba, India, Thailand or such for inexpensive medical care.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
A recent survey of scientific education and attitudes showed the Canadian population to have the highest level of scientific literacy in the world, as well as the fewest reservations about the direction of scientific progress
They measured multiple things! The statement "We depend too much on science and not enough on faith" was measuring attitudes about science, and neither the article nor the report present it as an example of scientific literacy. Here is what the article stated as proof of scientific literacy from the article:
Among the most striking results from the survey is that Canada ranks first in science literacy, with 42 per cent of Canadians able to read and understand newspaper stories detailing scientific findings.
The executive summary of the report goes on to list some tests as an additional assessment:
Average score on OECD PISA 2012 science test: 525 (10th out of 65 countries)
Average score on OECD PISA 2012 math test: 518 (13th out of 65 countries)
Life expectancy in Canada(82.5) is longer than in the USA(79.8), so apparently those health care queue's aren't that lethal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
You mean the one that makes me wait months and months any time I need to see a specialist, unless it's an absolute emergency? An informed consumer of healthcare these days hardly benefits from the knowledge a mere GP can offer, which by definition is rather lacking in specificity (all they really bring to the table are the ability to write prescriptions and issue referrals). Think of it this way: you're likely spend a lot more time on the (hopefully small number of) ailments you suffer from, and the amount of research and knowledge you'd acquire would pale in comparison to what a GP is likely to have much practice with. A healthcare system that creates incredible delays when trying to reach a specialist is shit, no matter how "free" it is.
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_otfw...
What does that tell you?
Smart people live in China, parts of Europe and New Zealand.
Canada = Below average.
USA = Below average.
The one reply to this so far is nothing more than an expression of disgust; but that's better than modding down. Remember, dear moderators, there is no -1 Disagree mod. The other negative mods are not there as substitutes. It was left out on purpose. If you want to refute the parent, put forth an argument.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Now look across the border and see the non wealthy Canadians who still get treated* without going bankrupt just because they got sick. Who don't have to worry about what a trip to the doctor will cost when they need treatment. (*Get treated, including preventative care, without having to wait until problems become serious enough to justify a trip to the emergency room.)
The US health care system may be really good for the wealthy, but it really is not so good for the non wealthy people who can't afford it. We socialist Canadians think everyone should have health care.
ever since Bob and Doug showed me how to get free beer using only a dead mouse.
But there is -1 overrated which covers pretty much anything the modder wishes. Tough cookies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I'm Canadian and I'm very pro-science. Not because I'm left-wing or right-wing, but because my mother was a science teacher and I've basically absorbed it. I literally have no personal attributes that I can try to commend regarding my decent scientific knowledge. Regarding the fucking article, I'm Canadian and I have a science education. A bachelors to be technical. I hated science courses in university. They were dry and the instructors had no interest in helping me. It was a night and day difference from my high school experience. Back to the topic of this article, Canadians understand science to be the truth. We've got less religious disruption than the Americans, and probably many European countries. I told my mother a few months ago that "I need to tell you, growing up I didn't realize that scientific beliefs would be repeatedly questioned in front of me as if there were no experimental evidence" and she went off on some other tangent as mothers do, but I was trying to tell her that she is the basis of everything I believe in the world. My parents took me to church and it was obviously bullshit. My mom told me about chemical reactions and it made sense. I hate myself for not being kinder to my mother.
Though not many are willing to admit it, science is based on faith, and if anyone would say otherwise, they would be lying. Hume's problem of induction really shows this faith we hold well - If I hit an billiard ball and it moves, how do I really know whether it was my hitting the ball that caused it to move? Though it SEEMS to be moving due to my touching it, how are we really sure? We use faith in our senses and assume that the hitting caused the motion. All research is done in this fashion, based on faith in science. I'm not sure how I would have answered the question in it's current form, since it is ambiguous about whether it is speaking about religious faith or faith in action. If it where less vague, and asked that we should depend on religious faith more, though, I would have definitely answered no.
Imagine that you drew an Euclidean triangle on a piece of paper, measured its internal angles and calculated their sum. And suddenly you obtained 185 degrees as the result! What do you do in such case?
A) Assume that your measurements and/or calculations contain an error
B) Declare to the world that you found an triangle that tops the list of all Euclidean triangles known to man in therms of the internal angle sum.
I hope you have enough scientific literacy to realize that A is the correct answer.
The authors of the above research apparently belong to that peculiar group of people who chose B in cases like that. Sorry, geniuses, when you end up in situations when Canada tops your "list of most science-literate countries", you go back, review your research and find where you screwed up.
The most science-literate countries in the world are Russia and Belarus. Every time you obtain a different result, you just throw your "research methodology" into the garbage can and start over. Yes, it is a s simple as that. Class dismissed.
P.S. LOL! Canada...
I've lived and worked in Canada my entire life, had lots of average friends here, and met a great cross section of canadians.
Just because canada has a very high percentage of athiesm, doesn't mean the majority of canadians understand that there are particles smaller than an atom, that the concept of gravity has developed past Newtonian, the flow of electricity in a direct current system, or even the basic laws of energy any better than the average american.
Seriously, they don't. This lack of knowledge is apparent in everyday conversations trying to discuss anything in both canada and the usa. It seems most average people in most places don't care to understand that stuff.
Our health care system? Oh come on now. Just because everyone recieves equal care doesn't mean anyone benefits from advanced research. Many advanced procedures available in private medical care in the usa are simply not available here, as public funding won't allow for the training or technology. It's not a factor.
Overrated is not Disagree. Read the FAQ
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
I found this question on their measure of scientific literacy. See page 77,
"The universe began with a huge explosion".
They marked it as correct if you answered "true".
sigh.
Also, I found a weird one:
"listened to a science program on the radio"
avg. annual frequency: 3.6
% who engaged at least once in the past 3 months: 30
Seriously? There are science shows on Canadian radio that a third of the population listened to?
Why yes, there is and they do.
http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/
http://legacy.jyi.org/volumes/...
Now I'm impressed.
If you kill God, you are scientific and literate.
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
The US health care system may be really good for the wealthy, but it really is not so good for the non wealthy people who can't afford it. We socialist Canadians think everyone should have health care.
And yet it still has nothing to do with scientific literacy.
The anonymous coward author is pulling @#%$ out of his ass to bring it up.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
The statement "We depend too much on science and not enough on faith" presents a false dichotomy. Science as depicting scientific thought and experimentation via the scientific process is orthogonal to religious belief. I can believe in God and still apply the principles of the scientific process.
In fact, the scientific process itself is even orthogonal to scientific belief. The sleight of hand occurs when science is used to represent both the scientific process as well as scientific belief. For example, there is a huge difference between trust in experimentation to test hypotheses and the belief that humans evolved from single-celled organisms. The case of evolution (and pretty much most of past history) is poorly suited to testing via the scientific process. That doesn't meant that human evolution isn't true, but it does mean that it shouldn't be held in the same regard as other results that have been subjected to double-blind, independently repeatable experiments that are the gold standard of science.
Oh man that's awesome. EU is a country now? That'll make geography much easier.
There are big difference between science literate and functional literate
The health-care system works perfectly as long as you don't need something special or new (so new advances are often not available because of cost). I had a torn knee cartilage and it took many many months before I gave up and "jumped the queue" to have an MRI done in Buffalo for $450 (the day following the appointment). They schedule cheaper "tests" first, then after those failed to find anything they scheduled an ultrasound.... I asked what the doctor expected to find - he told me nothing but he had to schedule it first before more expensive tests..... after a couple of months in different queues I was getting a little impatient.... I asked if they could schedule the MRI now since their was a long queue for it and cancel it if not needed -- he told me no.... I had to come back with a negative on the ultrasound before the next test was scheduled -- and the queue for the MRI was at least 8 months at the time. That friday I called up a clinic in Buffalo and asked the cost and when they could schedule me.... they said.... tomorrow and $450.... I jumped, if I was waiting on the Canadian Healthcare system for my knee - I would probably still be waiting. 90% don't need it for anything more than the odd consult and for those 90% it works perfectly....
Canadian health care *does* represent the latest technological advances. In the city where I live, there are MRI's equipped with real-time tumor tracking (applying radiation or 3d disruptive ultrasound or both to tumors that can be literally travelling in the bloodstream, and not affect any other tissue other than the tumor). No one else has that. ZMAPP (Ebola drug) was initially developed in a Canadian Lab, along with two other drugs that act as a vaccine against Ebola. If you want the best, go to Canada.
The statistic for EU as a whole is irrelevant, since the EU is not a country(for the moment at least, though they are working on making it one).
It is. The statement is completely true. but first you have to realize that the hospitals are seperate entities from the paper pushers in the AA adminstration. The problem isnt the healthcare provided, like most US healthcare its really quite good (our main problem isnt quality, its quantity and cost). The problem is the horribly mismanaged and innefficient VA adminstration.
Part of it is the adminstration has only a few offices that handle very large regions (consisting of several entire states each). And then the adminstration also handles ALL VA and service related benefits, not just medical care. GI bill, service-related disability pay, healthcare, etc etc on and on. That's not to excuse the problem, or that some officials tried to cover up their inefficiency by lying, but simply to show the scale of the problem.
And then politicians repeatedly NOT doing anything to fix it ("it costs too much") but demanding more and more results, and even cutting funding doesn't help either. And there is something to be said for how fighting two wars for over a decade will tend to dramatically increasing the number of veterans applying to the system, thus increasing backlogs even further.....
But as the man said:
Americans have a proud tradition and history of serving their country honorably.
And America has a sorry history, dating back to the Revolutionary war, of messing those veterans over once the fighting is done.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
the VA isnt nanny state policy.
if you think about just a little, though i nkow it will stress the few neurons you actually have, you'll see that having a safety net doesn't automatically preclude self reliance. in fact, safety nets actually help economies by preventing the loss of assetts and propping people up til they get back on their feet. When countries without safety nets experience economic downturns those economies fall faster and farther than those in countries with a safety net, because the safety serves to break the vicious cycle wherein a falling economy drives itself deeper and deeper in a vicous feedback loop as people react to it. Food stamps alone had a nearly 2:1 economic multiplier during the recession a few years ago. IE, the 40billion a year spent on SNAP caused ~80billion in economic activity. Thats 80billion keeping companies and their workers working.
we are the richest nation on earth, yet we have the highest poverty rate of any developed nation.
we are the richest nation on earth, yet we have the highest rate of malnourished children of any developed nation.
(this list could go for at least 20 entries, so lets just cut to the chase)
we could easily fund every single social insurance and safety net program under the sun, while still being the richest nation on earth. our biggest subsidies go not to the poor, but to (1) corporations, (2) the rich and (3) the shrinking middle class.
if preserving the middle class, and preventing those in poverty from dying and starving in the streets mean the richest 0.1% make only 1 billion a year instead of 4 billion a year, I'm ok with that. Because what good is being the richest nation on earth, what good is being so rich your money ceases to have value, if it means nearly 1/5th of your citizenry is just one bad day away from being on the street?
It's not nannny statism. It's basic decency.
Also, it's worth noting that all those nanny states you mock have:
-cleaner air and water
-longer life expectencies
-similar per capita incomes
-similar (and even larger) per capita GDPs
-lower unemployment rates
-lower poverty rates
-higher rates of home ownership
-less affected by economic downturns
And they still manage to have rich people and self-reliant people, and entrepenaurs, and inventors, and all that other stuff you mistakely believe just magically disappears. oh and they manage to do all this while also working fewer average hours per week, with more days off in a year, and dramatically less personal debt (~20% of their yearly income, comapred to American's average of 100-150% of their yearly income).
TLDR: What you've just said... is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul...
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
You are full of shit.
The scientific method (what you call "Science") makes testable and falsifiable predictions. Religion does not.
If a scientific theory is shown to be wrong, it is either modified until it better fits the facts or an alternative theory is developed. If religious belief is shown to be wrong, odds are the people showing it as such are shunned or killed.
Science has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. The scientific method is the single biggest factor in the progress of humankind.
" the vaunted Canadian healthcare system"
- 17 hour average wait time in the Emergency Room
While I can't argue with you about the other ones, this one here is utter bullshit. If you stumble into the Emergency Room with an emergency, you will be treated accordingly. What people complain about is having to wait 17 hours in the ER because they sprained an ankle.
On one occasion, I ended up in the ER with a life-threatening acute heart condition. I was brought in an ambulance, and the doctor was actually waiting for me rather than me waiting for him... that's like negative wait time. On a second occasion (not so long after the first episode), I also had heart troubles but I managed to get to the ER on my own, and the nurse that does the triage sent me right into a room where a doctor arrived within 2 minutes. That is what the emergency room is about. Emergencies.
The fact that people end up in the ER for very trivial stuff is a symptom of a system that is utterly broken in many other ways (lack of family doctors, long waiting lists for specialists, and so on), but the ER itself is the one thing in the whole system that works exactly as intended, but it receives too much undeserved flak because that's what the population actually see, while they do not understand the failings of the bigger system above it.
Two trips to the ER which saved my life, a heart surgery that stabilized my condition, allows me a high quality of life and lets me contribute to society, all that without paying a dime. That is what the vaunted Canadian healthcare system is all about. By getting me back on my feet as a productive member of society, I have already paid back way more in income tax and other fiscal contributions than what the whole ordeal could have cost, so it is a net gain for society.
After 3 days without programming, life becomes meaningless
- The Tao of Programming
I'm in Canada and the level of scientific knowledge is abysmal. That tells me that the planet must be full of morons if Canuckleheads know more than they do about science.
Holy crap I hope this is not true!
I skimmed trough the full report but did not find:
1) Where's the list of (35) countries they picked for comparison?
2) It would be nice to find some justification why those countries were chosen, otherwise it's a bit hard to justify if they really are top or just top of that carefully selected group :)
Cheers,
ac
The majority of Canadians are not afraid of their neighbours. They do not fear their chosen god. They can usually handle slow changes very well, such as the pace of changes in science. These three things would naturally lead to a more rational state of mind.
So I had no option to pay for it in Canada as well. But back to the point of this article, NEW scientific advances would not benefit the Canadian Health system until it became old and cheaper.
Better than, say, the health care systems in the UK, Germany, France, Spain, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Taiwan, etc.?
there are a lot of shitty developing countries with healthcare that's much worse, and there's the united states.
There are a good number with better healthcare than Canada no question, but the number of countries with much worse or none eclipses that list
There's "the alternatives" and there's "the alternatives worth considering". The latter category excludes the developing countries in question, as well as the US. Hopefully the people in charge of health care in Canadian governments (federal and provincial) are looking at the alternatives in the latter category to see what they can learn from them.
http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/yo...
51% of the Canadian population has attended post-secondary education. That means most Canadians had to perform fairly well in their science classes, and in University, were probably forced to take at least a few science courses even if they were in an unrelated field.
On what planet is MRI new?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
What?
Easily 75% of college graduates take no college level science or math. The take a remedial on things they should have learned in middle school and are done.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Ask a Canadian and an American if tomorrow will be sunny. The American "believes" it will be. The Canadian doesn't know, because s/he's "being realistic." They'd go on to say that the American is just "being a typical American" thinking happy thoughts. What can I say? Canadians just don't believe in the power of positive thinking. Or much else for that matter.
Cynics? Oh yeah! Canadians and Americans fundamentally look at life differently, and that's been going on since way before healthcare. On New Year's eve, Americans look forward to the sure-to-be-wonderful new year while Canadians celebrate that they made it through the old one! Cynicism bordering on pessimism is in Canada's DNA, same as positive thinking is in the US' DNA. Yes, I'm painting with an overly broad brush here, but to make a point.
Science may require some belief, too, but it sure feels less like of a stretch than religion.
Oh, and most Canadians are well aware that as recently as the early 60's they were historically oppressed and kept in "the great darkness" by an unholy cabal of church and semi-totalitarian state. That's enough to make a hard-ass "realist" of anyone.
I had a lot of arts students in my science classes. There was a Geology class with no lab requirement, and it picked up the name 'rocks for jocks', since PhysEd and Arts students could fit it in as an 'easy' option. At my University (the University of Alberta), you were generally forced to take a certain number of credits from other departments unless you were in Honours. I was doing a CS degree, but I took a lot of Geology. In the Arts realm, I chose Comparative Literature and took some Latin.
I'm not sure where your stats are from or if they're even Canadian. Maybe the UofA was weird--do you have a citation?
I am another Canadian: just to echo the previous posting. Are you sure? Canada?
On the other hand Americans may want to view this to be very worried about US education.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10202517290999274
Unfortunately I have to agree with GP
It is certainly NOT cynicism as those of us from the North of the border know how pathetic our school system is - and unfortunately the same could be said for the products of that utterly lousy education system
You yourself give a good analogy. 'Rocks for Jocks' is typically middle school earth science rehashed and taught slower. e.g. These are sedimentary rocks...
That's where science stops for liberal arts students. Science courses completely without math.
Why do you think journalists repeatedly report perpetual motion as straight news? They don't know any better.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The fact that people end up in the ER for very trivial stuff is a symptom of a system that is utterly broken in many other ways (lack of family doctors, long waiting lists for specialists, and so on), but the ER itself is the one thing in the whole system that works exactly as intended, but it receives too much undeserved flak because that's what the population actually see, while they do not understand the failings of the bigger system above it.
So it is NOT the "utter bullshit" that you claimed. I went to the ER for a dislocate finger 9pm at night (the athletic trainer was unable to relocate it and I deferrered to her judgement). Had I been required to wait 17 hours, your fast track to the heart doctor would not make me feel better about the experience (despite agreeing 100% that you ought to be fast-tracked). Anyway, this was in a well off 'burb in USA so that finger was relocated in like 30 minutes. It was delayed by x-rays.
I can't find the original survey. Anyone that was able to dig it up?
How did the other 34 countries do?
I present a rational argument and instead of addressing the fact by definition Science is a religion, you go off into a strawman argument trying to ostracize me long after my comment had been censored by others sharing your views.
The irony being that you literally did what you say religious people do and yet you seem so certain it is not a religion.
To be honest, it was the /. editor who just shoved a paragraph into the summary which had no business being there.
It's a popular trick for manipulating search engine results: Insert some remark into an article claiming a positive corelation between X and nationalized health care. Later, you can Google 'healthcare' and cite several thousand (uncontested) articles supporting your conclusion.
Have gnu, will travel.
And this is also why there is so much of a rift in politics concerning Science, because many people that support it do not realize that the knowledge it presents is not absolute and thus just as fallible as some of the seemingly ludicrous alternatives.
Bullshit.
I have never met anyone who believed that the knowledge that science presents is absolute in my almost 70 years on this planet.
The difference being that this study was of the entire population, not just the wacky political spectrum.
On top of what you already mentioned, the Conservatives only won the 35% of the vote because the left is split. However, "uniting the right", basically consisted of taking the Reform party (which was primarily out out Alberta), and re-branding it the Alliance Party (which was out of Alberta), and combining it with the pathetic Progressive Conservative Party which was across Canada, but only had 9 actual seats in power (of 308), to be re-branded again as the Conservative Party... With a leader, from Alberta.
So if you discount the god smoking, oil toting, Alberta nuts, the rest of Canada is pretty good. They have however gotten a bit of a strangle hold on our government however. Day was a bit wacky I'll grant you that, buy burying him (he is still around though), re-branding again under a more comfortable name, and then getting a leader that is from Ontario (born Albertan), who is supposedly a economist.... seems to have been the ticket.
Though another weird Canadian example is in Ontario there are two school boards, a public secular one, and a public Catholic one. Which is crazy. However no politician with a chance at winning is going to touch that with a 10ft poll or have all the Catholic vote torpodeo them. Not to mention the Teachers Unions.
It wasn't as simple as that, honestly. And there were lots of arts students in my calculus and algebra classes.
I'm just contesting your 75% declaration. I don't have a better number to give, though. :)
How many were left by the end of Calc? Did you take real calc or 'calc for business majors' aka 'calc without math'? Simply put; could you have gone on to take diffEq or was diffEq 'included' (if it was 'included' it tells me you didn't even take calc).
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I took standard analysis. I wasn't in honours. It was a requirement for my computing science degree. Abstract Algebra *wasn't* a requirement for my computing science degree, but I took it anyway. For some reason, it was packed with education students, but it was what you'd expect--rings, fields, groups, etc.
I'm not saying that arts students are somehow also scientific powerhouses, merely that they've got science requirements to meet, and not all of them are fluff. Logic 101 was popular because it could fulfil either a science or an art requirement. Geology 101 was popular despite having a lab component because as these things go, it wasn't actually that difficult. Either way, those kinds of classes could help explain why science literacy is so high in this country. Even decent exposure to one or two classes could make a big difference.
Oh! I just remembered that you could actually Major in Mathematics at the U of A and get a BA. You'd do all the same Math courses as someone in the Science faculty, but your other requirements would be more arts focused.