Re: [Phys-l] Anti-science (Was: Responding to a DJ about science)

["John Clement" <clement@hal-pc.org>]

> I guess that the term "this kind of person" was self-referential. I would
> direct you to
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB123025595706634689.html
>
> to dispel myths about GWB's "literacy". He certainly got tongue tied
> making off-the-cuff comments - but so do many presidents when not using a
> teleprompter.

One can read a lot and still not be very literate, or appear very literate.
Bush scoffed at Darwin, and appeared to be anti-scientific.  Indeed his
administration is often considered to be the most anti-scientific.  Does one
really need a teleprompter to be able to speak a coherent sentence?  The
majority of presidents never needed or had a teleprompter.

When students come out with sentences where one can not tell what they are
saying, I always assume that they are incorrect, and ask them clarifying
questions.  In reality their thinking is usually confused, so they make
general statements such as "it is going up".  But what is going up?
Inability to coherently say something is in my experience usually a sign of
confusion.

But whether or not he was literate was not the point of my paragraph.  The
point was that high office now can be attained without appearing to be
literate and well spoken.  If anyone spoke like FDR they could not be
elected in today's political climate.  The electorate values someone who
appears to be common over somebody who appears to be educated.  I suspect
the Bush might have done poorly on the Lawson test of scientific thinking,
considering his public statements.  But since we can't administer it, we
will never know.  He did not betray much understanding of science or
scientific thinking ability.  I would say his science courses were actually
a failure.

So OK he read a lot of books.  When I was in HS and MS I read a book a day.
So does that mean I am more literate than somebody who only read one a week?
I missed an important point in Candide because I didn't know what "ravish"
meant!  I have a niece who reads a lot, but her comprehension is not very
high.  We do not know how much he actually comprehended or whether he just
skimmed the books.  We do not know how well he could make logical deductions
or whether he had good hypothetico-deductive reasoning.  I suspect he did
not, and tended to make decisions based on emotional intuition.

My point still stands that the electorate wants someone who looks like them
rather than someone who appears to be much more educated.  The US does have
a strong anti-intellectual and now an anti-science streak.  Actually from
what I have read Bush had one strong talent.  He came across on a personal
level as being very likeable.  He had what might be called genius level
interpersonal talent.  This apparently was what helped him achieve high
office.

And my other point was that the anti-science streak is our fault for not
educating students properly.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX