AK Rifles banner

1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,935 Posts
13 out of 13 here as well.
I think the ease of this quiz speaks volumes on the lack of confidence The Smithsonian/Pew have in the public...can't say as I blame 'em.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,072 Posts
100%. Did start fretting as I cant remember anything these days...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,355 Posts
Crap, I got the one about the atmospheric gas wrong. My first instinct was to say Nitrogen, but hit Oxygen instead.:doh:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,899 Posts
They choose 13 questions that could literally be about anything in science, or in other words, could be about anything in the world, but one out of the 13 questions has to be an opportunity for the public to confirm that they-believe-that-scientists-believe CO2 is especially relevant to warming. It's not really scientific to believe in conclusions about the results of an ongoing descriptive experiment with no control condition, whether the average scientist believes in such a conclusion or not. Being a scientist doesn't make the scientist's words credible or even scientific. A scientist is only a scientist when it is following the methodology. There is nothing false about that question or its answer, and contributions of CO2 to global temperatures aren't any more easily disproven as they are proven, but science, for the purpose of reaching a conclusion in pursuit of theories or laws, is supposed to be a deductive process, and if they are gauging our knowledge of science, they should be gauging our tendency to remember and apply deductions made using the scientific method, and not merely gauging our capacity to "believe in" a politically charged logical induction made by scientists with a financial conflict of interest whilst acting outside of the scientific method. They seek to assess our knowledge of science, but instead, they demonstrate and sort of confirm our compliance with a duality in our use of the word. It is an impartial process of discovering and conveying facts. When scientists apply the certainty of a deduction to the probable nature of a set of inductions, science becomes dogmatic, where the inductive science can undermine the reliability that we should only associate with deductive science. When humans need to design a rocket, they depend on a mountain of facts derived deductively, but if humans just seek to control the behavior of other humans, then it's good enough to propagate the results of logical inductions and elevate their credibility by applying the word science!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,635 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
The fact I am in the 7% is a sad commentary on the publics' ignorance as I am lousy at science. Maybe watching the Science Channel has improved my knowlege of PC science, yukedy, yuk!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,528 Posts
Crap, I got the one about the atmospheric gas wrong. My first instinct was to say Nitrogen, but hit Oxygen instead.:doh:
13 out of 13
I remembered the nitrogen thing as I had recently heard the Car Guys on the radio talking about using nitrogen in car tires.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,000 Posts
Crap, I got the one about the atmospheric gas wrong. My first instinct was to say Nitrogen, but hit Oxygen instead.:doh:

8% 12/13 right.... Missed that one too. I said Hydrogen cause fo some dumb reason I was thinking H2O,,,
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
199 Posts
This is a great! Thanks! I feel a little better now. Got 12 of 13. Must still be be beating the oldtimers.:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,273 Posts
13 of 13 not bad
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top