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...
Before you can pay for it or get it for free it's got to be authorized first. While actually being responsible for yourself can be a burden it also allows you to take command of the situation. That's something that is typically overlooked by people rushing to worship nanny state polices.
See the VA.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
" the vaunted Canadian healthcare system"
- 17 hour average wait time in the Emergency Room
- Months on waiting lists to be seen by a specialist
- Many more months to start receiving treatment
- Years on the waiting list for things like knee, hip replacement
A 60 year old Canadian who has been waiting for years to be assigned a family doctor, who has to reserve an appointment 3 months ahead of time to see a cardiologist
You gotta be shitting me with your "vaunted Canadian healthcare system"
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.
"[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.
Fact: fewer Negroes, ergo higher IQ.
Fact: Canada = fewer Negroes.
Fact: Canada --> higher IQ
Q.E.D.
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.
The fact people are convinced that Science is not a religion is really distressing. I know many people immediately think of religions as being relying heavily on the supernatural, but there are and have been plenty of religions that had no gods or mysticism. A religion itself is simply a set of shared beliefs, rituals and philosophies, just like culture is a shared set of preferences, symbols and styles.
Science itself is just that, a shared set of beliefs as detailed by theories, the Scientific method itself a dogma and there are numerous common philosophies mingled together all rooted in materialism.
The latter, materialism, is why most people do not believe Science is a religion, because most religions over the years always had elements that at face value seemed supernatural and thus non-material. This misinterpretation is mostly because materialists recognize integrated symbols (from the cultures of the people in the religions) or allegories as literal when that is not the case.
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. Numerous theories are also heavily laced with other religious beliefs and many people do not even see the relationship.
Don't get me wrong, there are numerous aspects to Science that have been a huge help to innovation and progress, such as the requirements of reproducibility, but anyone that thinks that the Scientific method is they ONLY way to discover things needs to spend some time diving into the history of humanity's technological progress.
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.
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.
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)
Just a comment that our health care system in Canada is only good if your already poor. Wealthy Canadians keep American health insurance to get prompt treatment if immediate top quality care is ever needed. (vs waiting months for MRI's and other basic testing).
~10% of the sales tax was created for the health care system, it now gets only about 1/3rd of that and with GST etc sales tax is 15%+- depending on province. You can use this figure as an estimation of what health insurance costs in the USA vs Canada.. First most goods are 50-100% more in Canada, then your paying the tax; It would only take someone spending a few hundred dollars a month on 'extras' in the USA to see american insurance isn't all that bad(unless your already sick and have -preexisting conditions).
Several people in my family waited over 6 months for their cancer treatment to begin because of delays in isolating the exact type/scans and other BS that would have been done the SAME/NEXT DAY in an American hospital.
Canada has WMD's, and um, camels and oh!!! OIL!! Liberate the hell out of us PLEASE!
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."
ever since Bob and Doug showed me how to get free beer using only a dead mouse.
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.
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.
by lying about some phony "either or" between science and faith. They are embarrassed when people tell jokes and they are the "butt."
If you kill God, you are scientific and literate.
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
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....
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).
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.
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'
I can't find the original survey. Anyone that was able to dig it up?
How did the other 34 countries do?
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.