Scientific Literacy.

We disagree on what science is. I don't think I agree with what you mean by "guessing game" (if I understand what you are saying there). Science has a unique power to build technology, save and extend lives, predict weather, build satellite networks for instant global communications. Our modern society is built on and depends on science.

By institution I mean that our societies have built up a system for developing, storing and using knowledge gained by human endeavor over centuries. We have a system of mathematical notation that allows scientists to express ideas. We have an education system to maintain the knowledge over generations. We have peer reviewed papers, and scientific standards. And we have an ever increasing body of knowledge.

Perhaps most importantly we have a way to answer questions through experiment with accountability to a community of peers.

Yes, very few of us will enter this community... it requires 10 to 12 years of full time study in advanced math and previous knowledge including experience doing research and being reviewed by peers.

That is what I mean by "scientific institution". I wasn't saying that science was the institution... it is our societies' carefully built community of scientists with the legacy of centuries of building knowledge... that counts as an institution. This is the way our societies do science.

Modern societies ignore the findings or the scientific community at their peril; whether the issue is global warming, or GMOs.

It's funny that you refer to the Copenhagen interpretation as "pop-philosophy" given that the two individuals who came up with the interpretation which deals with quantum mechanics were Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg, two physicists steeped in the mathematics of quantum mechanics. The Bohr model and Heisenberg uncertainty principle were named after them, respectively. You might want to look them up.

You need to get out of your ideological rut.

Still, my point stands that a lot of scientists are not scientifically literate by your definition, as they understand **** about science outside of their speciality. And even within their own domain, quite a few in my experience go through the motion without necessarily understanding why they do what they do.

I note that you didn't take up my challenge on proving heliocentrism. So your own scientific literacy remains in doubt...

Unlike you, I respect and value science for what it is: an intellectual adventure. You worship it as an idol.

I am talking about how we as a society should trust and support science as an institution. You are wanting to attack individual people. Your personal feelings about individual people have nothing to with the topic. I am not taking the bait. And yes, I apply this point to myself. I have never looked at fossils outside of a museum, or desquenced dna or carefully examined climate models myself. My belief in climate change and evolution depend on what the scientific institutions have told me.

My point is about science, and scientific institutions, in society.

Take it easy, Max. I am not accusing anyone, and if you cared enough about me to read my posts, you'd know I am a big science fan.

Your point was about scientific literacy and how rare it is, and I agree with you. Defined as you do in the OP, it is extremely rare.

Not sure what other points you are trying to make.

I refer to the "Copenhagen interpetation" as pop-philosophy for two reasons.

1. It is not testable, therefore it is not science. The scientific process has never been applied to the these musings.

2. Most of the people on the internet who are enamored by it don't have have a clue what they are talking about. Quantum Mechanics depends on wave equations, and the "Copenhagen interpretation" was philosophical musings based on results of this math...



If you don't understand the math (which Bohr understood and Heisenberg based his career work on), then any musings about the "Copenhagen interpretation" is nonsense. The Heisenberg uncertainty principles is a result of this wave equation.

Why don't you think that Bohr and Heisenberg are capable of philosophical musings? Your logic that everything that Bohr and Heisenberg did was science is ridiculous.

People love musings about multiple worlds and the nature of reality. Unless it can be observed and tested, it isn't science.

It will never be observed because we cannot observe electrons and quarks interacting with photons. We can only observe atoms and their location and speed is determined by the interactions of individual photons, electrons and quarks.

The quarks, electrons, and photons are real and predictable there fore they can be represented by patterns as Quantum mechanics. Musings about the patterns is as good as it is going to get because of the scales. If you Measure the universe from the combined point of view of all the quarks electrons, and photons involved in the entanglement you could predict a lot (maybe even everything until, somebody thinks of a new idea and messes up the patterns)

Shroedinger and Bohr were brilliant and there musings are mostly correct along with all the other interpretations of physics. All that is needed is a physical model to tie all the interpretations together.

Bohr didn’t believe that is possible. That is where his musings are flawed.

This is another example of what happens when people put articles in pop-science magazines into a blender.

now you sound like bohr talking about dirac, except he would have said this is what you get when you throw math and philosophy in a blender.

The wave equation is like the equations some carpenter scribbled on a paper to locate the corners of the foundation of a house on a property. If you want to talk about the house you need the blueprints or a the scribbles and a tremendous imagination

Quick question Brian; have you taken more than a semester of calculus in college?

4 semesters i took diffeq and did some work with matrixes