Newsweek: Dumb things American's believe

[Platapus]

The scary question is that of these people, how many of them vote?

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by Platapus

The scary question is that of these people, how many of them vote?

Odds are most of them are still eligible to vote. I lol'd and shuttered at their part on witchcraft and the supernatural.


It seems obvious that it's not a good idea to put too much stock in withcraft. But it turns out that 21 percent of Americans believe there are real sorcerors, conjurers and warlocks out there. And that's just one of the several paranormal beliefs common in Americans, according to Gallup: 41 percent believe in ESP, 32 percent in ghosts, and a quarter in astrology. In fairness, the numbers in this poll are a little old—they date back to 2005. But then again, if people haven't changed their mind since the Enlightenment, it's not clear another half a decade would make much difference.

[Platapus]

I work as an Election Official during the elections. I get to meet an "interesting" cross section of our citizens at the polling location. After the election, I often question the logic of universal suffrage.

It is a great concept, but do we really really really want every one to be able to vote?. In a democratically elected government, alas, the answer is, unfortunately yes.

There should not be a poll tax, but a poll test.

[Platapus]

I wonder if the 21% of the people who believe in witches are associated with the religion of Wicca in which the subscribers believe in good witches?

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Platapus

I wonder if the 21% of the people who believe in witches are associated with the religion of Wicca in which the subscribers believe in good witches?

I have a Coworker who's a wiccan. Before i knew that, my thought was wiccan's were some group you'd hear about, but would probably never bump into. The fact that I have makes me think their more common then one might think. The thing here is, we say "witch" and we think of green skin, black pointy hats, a broom, and a bubbling caudrlon. To a wiccan, the word "witch" probably has an entirely different context. I really don't know, just giving it the bennfit of the doubt.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

I have a Coworker who's a wiccan. Before i knew that, my thought was wiccan's were some group you'd hear about, but would probably never bump into. The fact that I have makes me think their more common then one might think. The thing here is, we say "witch" and we think of green skin, black pointy hats, a broom, and a bubbling caudrlon. To a wiccan, the word "witch" probably has an entirely different context. I really don't know, just giving it the bennfit of the doubt.

I went to school with a girl who was a Wiccan, so people still believing in witchcraft isn't surprising to me.

Did anyone of the Newsweek folks ask if theory is the same as proven fact? Yet to Newsweek theory and truth are one in the same.

I have never heard of Darwin's proven fact.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

Did anyone of the Newsweek folks ask if theory is the same as proven fact? Yet to Newsweek theory and truth are one in the same.

I have never heard of Darwin's proven fact.

I cannot refute this as intelligently so I will just have to quote another source...

From: http://www.evolution.mbdojo.com/theory.html

This is such a common complaint about evolution that it deserves a page of it's own. This comment is born out of misuse of the word theory. People who make statements like: "But it's only a theory; it's not a scientific law," or "It's a theory, not a fact," don't really know the meanings of the words their using.
Theory does not mean guess, or hunch, or hypothesis. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always be a theory, a law will always be a law. A theory will never become a law, and a law never was a theory.
The following definitions, based on information from the National Academy of Sciences, should help anyone understand why evolution is not "just a theory."
A scientific law is a description of an observed phenomenon. Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion are a good example. Those laws describe the motions of planets. But they do not explain why they are that way. If all scientists ever did was to formulate scientific laws, then the universe would be very well-described, but still unexplained and very mysterious.
A theory is a scientific explanation of an observed phenomenon. Unlike laws, theories actually explain why things are the way they are. Theories are what science is for. If, then, a theory is a scientific explanation of a natural phenomena, ask yourself this: "What part of that definition excludes a theory from being a fact?" The answer is nothing! There is no reason a theory cannot be an actual fact as well.

[Skybird]

I have just explained the scientific procedure to somebody just days ago, in another thread, and I do not repeat it all again. A good explanation what science
is doing and why it necessarily leads not to claims of penultimate truiths, but theories "only", I found in this book. the later chapter on Astrology as a
pseudoscience you can still use when replacing the word "Astrology" with for example "believing" or "religion" or "miracle and wonder", something like that.
the general remarks on astrology would be valid for these as well. All this stuff I set up should already be known to everybody who has done time at
university, it really is very basic and fundamental stuff.

The layout and small font is the way it is because I cannot change it and also cannot paste and copy the text.









from: CWS Mastering Astronomy online e-book version of Bennet/Donahue/Schneider/Voit: The Cosmic
Perspective, 5th edition, Pearson Education (highly recommended book, worth every penny).

[tater]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

Did anyone of the Newsweek folks ask if theory is the same as proven fact? Yet to Newsweek theory and truth are one in the same.

I have never heard of Darwin's proven fact.

This post shows that you don't know what a scientific theory actually is. Theory has one meaning in English, and a very specific meaning as scientific jargon.

Also, while Dawin's theory (natural selection) is a mechanism up for debate (there are a few minor variants out there), the FACT of evolution is different. Evolution is the OBSERVED change in species over time. It is fact (unless you have dinosaurs, etc running around in your yard).

The theory merely attempt to explain WHY the balance of species has changed over time. Natural selection simply means that the animals that are more reproductively successful increase in number at the expense of those who are not successful. If you think this is absurd, apparently you think that animals that have more offspring don't end up being a higher % of a given population (something that is self-evident).

It's been demonstrated in the laboratory of agriculture, where animals have been artificially selected by man for ages, and now dominate (horses, for example).

[Tchocky]

The amount of people who don't believe evolution to be real may be a strong argument against it.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by tater

Also, while Dawin's theory (natural selection) is a mechanism up for debate (there are a few minor variants out there), the FACT of evolution is different. Evolution is the OBSERVED change in species over time. It is fact (unless you have dinosaurs, etc running around in your yard).

I disagree, but only mildly, and admit that my background in science is sketchy, to put it mildly. What I believe is that the concept of THEORY admits to the possibility that said theory may be flawed, or even wrong. I've seen people reply to the challenge "Evolution is only a theory" with "So is gravity." Gravity, like electricity, is an observed phenomenon, and is so well understood that we can use it. That said, its actual nature - why it is the way it is - is still the subject of much debate, hence the Theory part.

So evolution is an observed phenomenon, but one with missing parts. Lest someone think I'm even remotely dismissing it, I say that while it is "only" theory, it is the best one going.

But all that is my roundabout way of getting to this: There may be scientists in the field who change the shape of that theory tomorrow, and scientests who subscribe to it will say something along the lines of "Well, back to square one."

But the problem is that people who challenge evolution don't do so because they have another theory. They do so because they have a preconcieved idea that becomes unworkable should evolution be accepted. If new evidence turns up tomorrow in support of evolution, their response won't be to say "Well, maybe we'd better rethink this." Their response will be to challenge the new evidence any way they can, because the idea that it might be true would destroy their most cherished beliefs.

Their problem is that they think everybody on the "opposite" side thinks exactly the same way, and most scientists don't think that way at all.

[ReFaN]

in other news, the earth is also flat.


http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

[Jimbuna]

This astounded me

Lost? Don't ask an American. Sixty-three percent of young Americans can't find Iraq on a map, despite the ongoing U.S involvement there. Nine out of 10 can't find Afghanistan—even if you give them the advantage of a map limited to Asia. And more than a third of Americans of any age can't identify the continent that's home to the Amazon River

What frightens me is the fact the above might even be replicated in the UK

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Platapus

I work as an Election Official during the elections. I get to meet an "interesting" cross section of our citizens at the polling location. After the election, I often question the logic of universal suffrage.

It is a great concept, but do we really really really want every one to be able to vote?. In a democratically elected government, alas, the answer is, unfortunately yes.

There should not be a poll tax, but a poll test.

Preaching this since years. In principle - and ignoring the problem of how to realsie that - one should need to qualify and prove one's competence to vote. and ion theory it should also made sure that people vote for this or that party not for idiotic motives like family tradition or long-held habits (this forms the relative majority of voters!), but for fact-oriented weighing of the püarty'S/politician'S acts in the last legislation period. Which means that somebody wnating to vote must prove his comprehensive knowledge and understanding of said record of decisions and acts of the past years.

In principle there should be a quaolification exam like at school, an dthen some bain surgery to get the nasty habit of just voting for a party because one has always voted for that party out of people's head. We also need a high injection of altruistic thinking that keeps egoism in check.

In ancient athen, democracy did not work too well at times, already, and at some time people were so unsatisfied with the constant corruption of the dmoicratic ideals that they decided to not vote, but to have a lottery. Random chance should made sure that all in all a balance between corrupting ursupators of power, and honest brokers of dmeocratic ideals would be in chgarge at any time. But most oridnary people being chosen for offices did not feel competent to fill said office, and sold their duties to advertsing "professionals". And again - the idea behgind the new mechanism got corrupted like democratic elections are corrupted today, though by different mechanisms.

In the end both the communist utopia and demiocracy are failing for the same reason: the fail to adress the inherent ammount of egoism in man. But both would only function properly if people would act and decide reasonably, altruistically, placing his own self interest second to that of the communal wellbeing. But that is not the case with parties and ost poltiicians, and it is not the case with a large share of voters as well. And that is why democracy is failing us.

It is a system for logically thinkling Vulcans only, not for selfish, greedy, irrational humans.