Yes, according to this survey (although I wonder if it’s a big enough sample to draw such firm conclusions). And controversially, professor Les Field blames the internet. ABC takes up the story:

A new survey has raised concerns about the level of scientific literacy in Australia, especially among young adults. And scientists say we’re falling behind our Asian neighbours.

Here’s our science correspondent Jake Sturmer.

JAKE STURMER: Do you know how long it takes for the Earth to orbit the sun?

VOX POP 1: Wouldn’t have a clue to be honest.

VOX POP 2: Sorry sir no, no idea.

VOX POP 3: Oh my God, I don’t know.

VOX POP 4: Orbit the sun? Is it a year?

JAKE STURMER: It is.

The Australian Academy of Science’s professor Les Field is concerned not enough people know basic scientific facts.

The academy has just conducted a survey of 1,500 people asking simple science questions. It found more than 40 per cent didn’t know how long it took the Earth to orbit the sun, and Professor Field is most surprised that three out of 10 Australians think humans lived with the dinosaurs.

LES FIELD: Dinosaurs and humans missed each other by 60 million years, or more than 60 million years.

JAKE STURMER: The prehistoric problems form part of a worrying trend according to the academy.

LES FIELD: We do have some popular TV and some movies like Jurassic Park and some terrific graphics which make these things look incredibly real when you see dinosaurs and humans running alongside each other and it makes it difficult for many people to distinguish fact from fiction.

JAKE STURMER: The academy’s Les Field blames search engines and the internet for making it too easy to find out information.

LES FIELD: That actually has decreased to some extent the fundamental or basic understanding of the way that the planet operates or our bodies operate or that things that are scientific operate.

More: http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2013/s3804599.htm

I was going to say a year.
It’s amazing how nature’s measurements sometimes match man made units, and then you’ve got light years which are probably something different again.

A survey of 1500 is reasonably large for this sort of thing (I’d have thought), but why didn’t they talk about the earlier surveys they were comparing with?

As for blaming the Internet, well obviously the Internet is to blame for everything, but isn’t the teaching of basic science in schools also worth considering as having some effect?

Fred Flintstone had a pet dinosaur. Just sayin’. Back in those days they counted down their years, but they didn’t know what they were counting down to.

is the answer jesus, Jehovah or allah?

Alexandria was wrecked by the religious mob

wookiemeister said:

Alexandria was wrecked by the religious mob

Historical literacy declining in Oz?

neomyrtus_ said:

wookiemeister said:

Alexandria was wrecked by the religious mob

Historical literacy declining in Oz?

I think the religious mob were wrecked by the bogan mob weren’t they?

The main ‘we’ll all be rooned’ message seems to concern the change in younger people over the last few years. Actually the other results are not too bad (although certainly could be much better).

However note that the sample of younger people is 147. Although the sampling error for overall questions is 2.5%, the sampling error for questions just about the younger group is more like 7.5%. It’s a fairly brave attitude to be conclusive with a sampling error like this.

MartinB said:

The main ‘we’ll all be rooned’ message seems to concern the change in younger people over the last few years. Actually the other results are not too bad (although certainly could be much better).

However note that the sample of younger people is 147. Although the sampling error for overall questions is 2.5%, the sampling error for questions just about the younger group is more like 7.5%. It’s a fairly brave attitude to be conclusive with a sampling error like this.

Statistical literacy declining in Oz?

under Ptolemy 1 science flourished, each successive rule after fell under the sway of religion wiping out science entirely

hero’s steam engine hails from Alexandria

>>hero’s steam engine hails from Alexandria

Yes. What of aeolipile literacy?

I’ve read the report (it’s available here http://www.science.org.au/reports/science-literacy.html) . The survey questions were so vague and ambiguous that they’re essentially worthless. Also, the report’s conclusions are not supported by the survey results. A discussion on The Conversation is less than flattering.

Wocky said:

I’ve read the report (it’s available here http://www.science.org.au/reports/science-literacy.html) . The survey questions were so vague and ambiguous that they’re essentially worthless. Also, the report’s conclusions are not supported by the survey results. A discussion on The Conversation is less than flattering.

but, but … if science literacy standards are not falling, how are we to argue that more public money should be spent on science education? much of

On the other hand, I didn’t think The Conversation article either. Yes, this survey was badly done and reported, but no that doesn’t mean that all surveys of this type are of little or no value.

Try again

Wocky said:

I’ve read the report (it’s available here http://www.science.org.au/reports/science-literacy.html) . The survey questions were so vague and ambiguous that they’re essentially worthless. Also, the report’s conclusions are not supported by the survey results. A discussion on The Conversation is less than flattering.

but, but … if science literacy standards are not falling, how are we to argue that more public money should be spent on science education?

On the other hand, I didn’t think much of The Conversation article either. Yes, this survey was badly done and reported, but no that doesn’t mean that all surveys of this type are of little or no value.

Bloody track-pads.

They didn’t justify it so well, but I think they are correct in their claim that measuring recall of factoids is a poor proxy for broader science literacy. (At least if the aim of such literacy is more than knowledge of facts. Part of the problem here is that this literacy is often pooy defined: is it factual knowledge, ability to make decisions in daily life on scientific matters, ability to engage with public science policy? All of these will have related but different bases of skills and knowledge.)

Another issue with these tests is that there will be false negatives (and false positives) that may be not inconsequential. I will guarantee that at least some people who answered ‘a day’ will just have misheard the question or confused themselves. This would speak to their ability to concentrate or do tests rather than their science literacy.

MartinB said:

Another issue with these tests is that there will be false negatives (and false positives) that may be not inconsequential. I will guarantee that at least some people who answered ‘a day’ will just have misheard the question or confused themselves. This would speak to their ability to concentrate or do tests rather than their science literacy.

Agreed. I thought the question about the % fresh water was particularly pointless. On the other hand I’d say it is possible to come up with a short set of questions that would test reasonably well for a basic knowledge of science (I wrote “understanding of science” first, then had a re-think).

The Rev Dodgson said:

MartinB said:

Another issue with these tests is that there will be false negatives (and false positives) that may be not inconsequential. I will guarantee that at least some people who answered ‘a day’ will just have misheard the question or confused themselves. This would speak to their ability to concentrate or do tests rather than their science literacy.

Agreed. I thought the question about the % fresh water was particularly pointless. On the other hand I’d say it is possible to come up with a short set of questions that would test reasonably well for a basic knowledge of science (I wrote “understanding of science” first, then had a re-think).

and I think a knowledge of science is less about quoting facts and figures and more about the process that is followed to arrive at a conclusion

diddly-squat said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

MartinB said:

Another issue with these tests is that there will be false negatives (and false positives) that may be not inconsequential. I will guarantee that at least some people who answered ‘a day’ will just have misheard the question or confused themselves. This would speak to their ability to concentrate or do tests rather than their science literacy.

Agreed. I thought the question about the % fresh water was particularly pointless. On the other hand I’d say it is possible to come up with a short set of questions that would test reasonably well for a basic knowledge of science (I wrote “understanding of science” first, then had a re-think).

and I think a knowledge of science is less about quoting facts and figures and more about the process that is followed to arrive at a conclusion

+1

personally i think you do need to know the basic facts, like how long the earth takes to orbit the sun. to not know them is akin to not knowing the times table, or rather how to multiply numbers. knowing what a year is leads to knowledge of a lot of related “facts” about the earth, and astronomy. you really need to know these “facts” so you don’t have to look them up whenever you want to work something out in which they are involved. so to my mind you do need to know a lot of basic facts.

Boris said:

personally i think you do need to know the basic facts, like how long the earth takes to orbit the sun. to not know them is akin to not knowing the times table, or rather how to multiply numbers. knowing what a year is leads to knowledge of a lot of related “facts” about the earth, and astronomy. you really need to know these “facts” so you don’t have to look them up whenever you want to work something out in which they are involved. so to my mind you do need to know a lot of basic facts.

Yes. It is also true that the general standard of education should have delivered these facts to each and every one of us. The problems may be more about the distractions from basic facts after the fact of basic education.

It is well known that teachers have the attention of the students for a mere fraction of their existence..

^.. ie: “if man evolved from apes.. why are there still apes?”

Hey dids, stole your line for my comment at The Convo. Sorry ;-)

Hey, Greg Boyles is commenting in that Conversation article.

Ah, GReg. He’s a “Lanscaper and former medical scientist “

I guess his former training helped with his aims to develop the sterility chlamydia to control populations.

No. wait. Chlamydia already causes sterility. Back to the garden shed for Greg former medical scientist.

neomyrtus_ said:

Hey, Greg Boyles is commenting in that Conversation article.

Ah, GReg. He’s a “Lanscaper and former medical scientist “

I guess his former training helped with his aims to develop the sterility chlamydia to control populations.

No. wait. Chlamydia already causes sterility. Back to the garden shed for Greg former medical scientist.

Jolly good, what’s the latest on Colin Leslie Dean?

Peak Warming Man said:

Jolly good, what’s the latest on Colin Leslie Dean?

In terms of progressive erotic poetry or his massive, gravity-defying scientific breakthroughs in whatever he discovered.

?

neomyrtus_ said:

Hey, Greg Boyles is commenting in that Conversation article.

Ah, GReg. He’s a “Lanscaper and former medical scientist “

I guess his former training helped with his aims to develop the sterility chlamydia to control populations.

No. wait. Chlamydia already causes sterility. Back to the garden shed for Greg former medical scientist.

Greg may be still operative somewhere but personally happy with the lack of contact.

neomyrtus_ said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Jolly good, what’s the latest on Colin Leslie Dean?

In terms of progressive erotic poetry or his massive, gravity-defying scientific breakthroughs in whatever he discovered.

yes.. it is more about everything other than the size of the appendage

neomyrtus_ said:

?

yeah..

A) Is that traversing the surface of the Sun at it’s equator?

B) A point in space?

Answer A is 27.3 daysish… OMG the same as the Moons…

Answer B is relatively pointless…

diddly-squat said:

and I think a knowledge of science is less about quoting facts and figures and more about the process that is followed to arrive at a conclusion

This.

Boris said:

personally i think you do need to know the basic facts, like how long the earth takes to orbit the sun. to not know them is akin to not knowing the times table, or rather how to multiply numbers. knowing what a year is leads to knowledge of a lot of related “facts” about the earth, and astronomy. you really need to know these “facts” so you don’t have to look them up whenever you want to work something out in which they are involved. so to my mind you do need to know a lot of basic facts.

Sure, it’s useful to know basic scientific facts, but I agree with diddly-squat that learning how to think scientifically should be the primary goal. The mere accumulation of science facts doesn’t make someone into a scientist. They also need to learn the scientific way of understanding the world and organising scientific knowledge.

A pile of disorganised facts is limited in its usefulness. You need to have a structured framework to slot those basic scientific facts into, and the skills to understand how those facts relate to one another. And how to evaluate those facts and to gather your own facts, either from the literature or by performing your own scientific observations & experiments, when required.

Certainly, it’s not practical to try to teach the scientific method without also teaching some science facts, but the focus should be on the method, not the facts, and IMHO the number of basic science facts that kids are expected to learn should be be kept to a minimal level consistent with the goal of teaching the scientific process. If they understand how Science works, and the basic organisation of the primary fields of science, then they can easily flesh out the details as and when they need them.

In this day & age of the Internet, facts are easy to come by. All it takes is a few clicks of the mouse. Actually understanding how to find relevant facts and what to do with those facts once you have them is the tricky bit. So schools shouldn’t be force-feeding students with a pile of facts, but they do need to teach kids how to handle facts scientifically, and why science is useful and important.

I’m sure volumes could be written on this topic; it’s not easy to summarise it in a couple of paragraphs. :)

>The mere accumulation of science facts doesn’t make someone into a scientist.

OTOH, knowing that the Earth takes a year to orbit the sun is surely a matter of very basic general knowledge.

OTOH, knowing that the Earth takes a year to orbit the sun is surely a matter of very basic general knowledge
—-

Yes. It’s primary school stuff.

Bubblecar said:

>The mere accumulation of science facts doesn’t make someone into a scientist.

OTOH, knowing that the Earth takes a year to orbit the sun is surely a matter of very basic general knowledge.

I’ll grant you that. And I’d certainly expect kids to learn that at some stage of their education.

I hope it was clear in my previous post that I’m certainly not averse to teaching some basic science facts in school. Just that those facts should be secondary to the more important goal of teaching the Big Picture.

Certainly, it’s not practical to try to teach the scientific method without also teaching some science facts, but the focus should be on the method, not the facts, and IMHO the number of basic science facts that kids are expected to learn should be be kept to a minimal level consistent with the goal of teaching the scientific process.

for sure. i wasn’t implying that you just learn facts. but that each discipline of science requires the knowledge of certain facts. you just can’t do science without them. learning the scientific process in a vacuum wont get you any where sooner or later you’ll need the basics.

dv said:

Yes. It’s primary school stuff.

Which is circumstantial evidence for my suggestion that ‘confused about the question’ (rather than ‘confused about the answer’) is making a not insignificant contribution to this statistic.

Boris said:

you just can’t do science without them. learning the scientific process in a vacuum wont get you any where sooner or later you’ll need the basics.

Very few of the general public will ever be ‘doing science’ in a formal sense. As I suggested above, unless you are clear about what your desired goal is for “science literacy” it is very difficult to assess what balance of skills and knowledge would be desirable.

Very few of the general public will ever be ‘doing science’ in a formal sense.

i’m restricting my opinions to purely school science. of any level..

MartinB said:

dv said:

Yes. It’s primary school stuff.

Which is circumstantial evidence for my suggestion that ‘confused about the question’ (rather than ‘confused about the answer’) is making a not insignificant contribution to this statistic.

Perhaps “not thinking the question through” rather than being “confused about the question”. For instance, I can imagine that many people would give the right answer at each stage if led through a series of simple questions about the structure of the Solar System, but if asked how long for the Earth to travel around the Sun would think, Sun “goes around” Earth every day, so the answer is one day. How much this reflects poor science education, and how much people thinking the question just isn’t worth a great deal of effort, I’m not sure.

The thing that really casts doubt on the relevance of this survey to education standards is the age distribution. If there had really been a huge drop of in the understanding of science in the last three years we would expect the immediate post school group to continue to do well, since the group entering at the young end would have been well educated for most of their school days, but in fact this group also had a large drop in correct answers for the Sun question.

Maybe the question was phrased differently, or maybe it was just random.

The Rev Dodgson said:

MartinB said:

dv said:

Yes. It’s primary school stuff.

Which is circumstantial evidence for my suggestion that ‘confused about the question’ (rather than ‘confused about the answer’) is making a not insignificant contribution to this statistic.

Perhaps “not thinking the question through” rather than being “confused about the question”. For instance, I can imagine that many people would give the right answer at each stage if led through a series of simple questions about the structure of the Solar System, but if asked how long for the Earth to travel around the Sun would think, Sun “goes around” Earth every day, so the answer is one day. How much this reflects poor science education, and how much people thinking the question just isn’t worth a great deal of effort, I’m not sure.

The thing that really casts doubt on the relevance of this survey to education standards is the age distribution. If there had really been a huge drop of in the understanding of science in the last three years we would expect the immediate post school group to continue to do well, since the group entering at the young end would have been well educated for most of their school days, but in fact this group also had a large drop in correct answers for the Sun question.

Maybe the question was phrased differently, or maybe it was just random.

In fact we have a very small change in the overall measurement, at about the level of the sampling error, and considerably larger changes in the measurements for the sub-samples, at about the level of the larger sampling errors for these sub-samples.

Frankly, the most plausible explanation is “nothing to see here” but that doesn’t make for great headlines. Certainly you would need a much more sophisticated instrument to get a real handle on whatever problem there is (which was the point of The Conversation article’s authors).