Why is the public so disinterested in science?
98089
because studying science needs a lot of time and effort and majority of the public dont hav that in their priiority..its boring too for those who hav no interest in the subject. you need to analize things in science for them to make sense and people dont tike that.
788350
In general, people who attack evolution barely know anything about it as it is. I seriously doubt they'd take the time to learn about any *other* scientific theories.
345791
I think it's because many people believe that some things are not meant to be shredded by the dry, scientific regime.\n\nSome view sex as a personal, loving act with religious/spiritual implications, and not something to be dissected by science.  Scientifically you could write thousands of pages about peanut butter and jelly sandwiches (their creation, hygiene, nutrition, aesthetics) but why?  Basically what I'm saying is that you must change your conceptual view to understand why some people don't want this infor taught to their kids.  You seem to view information as a tool to be used, as I do.  But others place a bigger importance on the societal, personal, ethical, and religious implications regarding certain subjects, and that trumps their view of information as a tool.\nYou have to admit that our society is pretty cold about things that previous generations held as sacred.  Here's one that gets me:  A famous beloved person has died, and how is it announced on the news?  "So-and-so died."  But the phrase "passed away" or "passed on" captures the situation much more beautifully.  We blip into existance, make our mark, and then dissolve back into nature.  So, those we hold in high esteem haven't died.  They've just faded, as was inevitable, from our world.  Why not emphasize the positive?  I think we need to spend more time trying to really comprehend the rationale and the subjective world of those we disagree with.  \n\nMy 2 cents.
51485
I've already answered a similar question. \nI could say that many people don't know enough of the living world that surrounds them; that could be blamed on education, personal interest, or whatever. \nBut ultimately it is about the time and effort that it takes to learn, understand, question, doubt, and find out if the "truth" that they're selling you is anything like what really happens. \nI think faith is absolutely respectable. I know that most of the times it helps people cope with life in a better way. But it's not science; and scientists object when someone tries to pass it as such (intelligent design and so forth). Belief is dogmatic; you believe that there is a god who created everything because you do. From that point you can use whatever observations you make to support your viewpoint (only think of the many interpretations that have been derived from the Bible - shudder- ).\nSometimes it may seem that scientists are also trying to sell dogmatic ideas, but that's because usually one is compelled to provide statements that are shorter and simpler than what we know or think. \nThat's why I started saying that it takes more effort and more thinking. If you study, if you learn and really observe the natural world, you can't help but seeing the links of similarity that connect all of us. \nIt is each person's choice.
424303
NO another example of how foolish christians think that science is bad. \nScience created nothing? where have you been?\nThis kind of thinking makes me very happy to have turned away from religion. I am so glad that I have donated money and became a member with the Freedom FROM Religion Foundation.
1149927
give up asking about this because people are just too stupid to realize the physics behind the government's story just does not add up.
518961
because they don't really know what science is.
296698
An interesting question. Copernicus and Galileo's work went against the universe that Aristotle described, and he was the most important figure in science for many centuries. Naturally, since Aristotle believed that all of the laws of nature could be deduced by thought experiments rather than observation and physical experimentation, and since he practically defined science for centuries, there was some social inertia built up which hindered widespread acceptance of ideas contary to his. \n\nAgain, social inertia played a role in the limited acceptance of Darwin's work among the populace as a whole. \nFundamentally, the theory of evolution contradicts a literal acceptance of the bible. The order of creation doesn't make any sense from the standpoint of one who understands even the rudiments of modern science (I mean, really, plants before the sun?), but most people are not that familiar with the text, or have centuries-old rationalizations to fall back on. Evolution, however, contradicts directly (well, according to creationists, and I can see why they argue that) the idea that the animals were created seperately from the plants, and so forth. It also eliminates any possibility of life being created within a single week (as we measure such on Earth, anyhow).\n\nMost people are ignorant of the science underlying how we know the age of the Earth, how we know evolution occurred, and so forth, and, fundamentally, they don't really care. If it didn't contradict their religious beliefs, they couldn't care less about that aspect of science, and so, they cannot be bothered to learn about it. The minority for whom it contradicts their religious beliefs, however, attempt to attack it on many levels. Since they cannot do so from a genuine scientific stance, they often do so disingeniously, attempting to phrase it as a conflict between scientists, or as two competing theories, or as an infalliable religious text versus a harebrained idea come up with by a lecherous, god-hating drunkard.\n\n Since most people don't care enough to actually learn the science, they get the impression that there is a genuine dispute, and they learn pseudoscience, believing that it is science. Since no one likes admitting they were wrong, many people refuse to do so, rationalizing that REAL scientists have the same doubts, or that there's a conspiracy so scientists don't look dumb, or that they have found an elementary flaw that all of the actual scientists out there have somehow managed to miss, rather than reasoning that perhaps it is actually themselves who do not understand the topic.\n\nFundamentally, I would argue that it is the result of the largely apathetic masses, who do not understand science, and could care less, and from the unwillingness of most people to admit that they might be wrong, or misunderstand something. Further, most people do not understand the scientific method, nor do they understand logic (or logical fallacies), and so are not able to evaluate claims of an evidentiary nature. Finally, most people listen to others, rather than thinking for themselves, and prefer simple answers to more complex ones.\n\nI should add that this post contains a healthy dose of opinion as to what the contributing factors are, and so may not represent all of the factors which are responsible for the refusal of many to accept the answers provided by the scientific method when they don't like (or understand) the answer. It merely contains those which, in my study of the subject, have seemed to contributed the most.
121691
Most of humanity is ignorant because the universe is a big place and too little time is spent learning about it.\nPeople are dumb because they choose to be dumb.
1107367
The majority of scientists work outside the field of evolutionary biology, so they technically have nothing to gain by pushing evolution, except the chance to educate the public about how science works and why it draws certain conclusions about physical evidence.  Those who work in the field have their professional reputations to think about, but that only matters, by and large, to other evolutionary biologists.\n\nI absolutely do not understand the tendency of non-science-oriented people to leap to the conclusion that the only purpose of science is to perpetrate a Giant Conspiracy geared toward the downfall of humanity.  Science and (most) scientists have no intention of destroying anything.  \n\nAll science does is look at the physical realities of the universe and devise experiments to figure out how things work.  Science properly has NOTHING TO SAY about religion.  There are no experiments that can test a hypothesis about God, or about anything supernatural.  Science does not seek to say WHO did or did not create the universe, only HOW it was done.  If you want to believe God was responsible for it, that's perfectly fine.  Science aims to figure out HOW He did it, not WHETHER He did it.\n\nSo, in answer to your last question, we should absolutely take advantage of the advancements brought about by modern science.  It would be foolish not to.
843241
Science is about opportunism. Dwarves standing on the shoulders of midgets. \n\nPersonally, I have no problem with advancement via Universities or specialist institutes. However, the influence of the benefactors is all too apparent in the world of academia. Multinational corporations have far too much say in where science is going. Of course scientists are not without integrity. Indeed, to use the Human Genome project as an example, not-for-profit altruism has come into direct conflict with the profit margin - known as the "let's patent this just in case it does something that benefits humanity, so we can make some quick bucks from it" approach. \n\nI begin to suspect the meek will not inherit the earth until the rich and powerful have destroyed it.
1002983
I"m a man of science. And it's not just because my family is always trying to push religion onto me. It's because i believe facts, and proofs. Even though technically, scientist say that they should never really say that they are a 100% sure, at least they have strong evidence, and they even admit that they are wrong. \n\nWith religion i have seen people look down on other people, and I'm think that, that's totally hypocritical and wrong. They tend ot judge a lot, especially if you have different ideas. A lot of people also are very narrow-minded about anything that isn't secular. They just stereotype it as bad. And i really hate that, especially since I have friends of all types of religions and they are GREAT people, and they are a whole lot more understanding. \n\nNot only that it's kind of stupid, how before the Bible is suppose to talk about how bad science it. Yet, here we are today and we see churches using it in their everyday lives. Plus, the Bible wasn't even written by a Christian, it was written by a Pagan, who only decided to compile several STORIES that were written that fit his wants, I think it was Constantinople, and he just did it to unite his people i think. Plus, the Christian/Catholic religion also has a very bloody and hateful history..
862225
Not in the least! It's pseudoscience which has failed every test put to it. The fact that so many people believe in it doesn't mean it's true; what it does indicate is the miserable failure of science education around the world.
882724
That's not a valid question. Belief in Science is not required, because Science has and requires evidence to back up all it's claims. It's like opening a book on the plays of Shakespeare and saying you believe that the little symbols you see in the book form words. If the book could feel emotions it would not care whethor you believed there were words inside it or not, because your belief or your disbelief has no effect either way.\n\nThe closest you can say is whethor or not you agree with the conclusions the scientific community has derived from the evidence.\n\nAs for why we're still attracted to the sun, yes you are correct in that there is mass lost with the hydrogen nuclear reactions taking place, but the mass the sun loses is very small in comparison to the mass of the sun.
717386
My  hobby is to encourage youg people to embrace science.\nDo your best but remeber science and career is not everything. Be human!
73846
Science is a human activity, and therefore it suffers from the same failings as many other human activities. One of these failings is a tendency to do unethical things from time to time by various participants, like steal each other's work or be less than honest about the outcome of various experiments. \n\nFor example, if one looks into the story of evolution, one finds that Darwin does not lay sole claim to the theory of natural selection. Wallace, Wells, Mathew, Buffon, Owen, and even Erasmus Darwin (Charles' grandfather) and many others independently came up with the idea, or are contenders for the title of "father of evolution". The actual priority claims are somewhat murky, and there have been charges of ethical lapses of various kinds. \n\nSimilarly, it appears that Newton might have fudged some of his celestial mechanics  and optics data and his theory of sound to get agreement between theory and experiment. Even the monk Gregor Mendel's data look a little too good to be true, apparently.  \n\nIn these cases, if science is to remain vital, I believe that ethical restraint must be practiced. Otherwise the entire enterprise might descend into a useless morass. \n\nHowever, I do not believe these are the events you are referring to; I believe you are referring to blocking certain types of inquiry or investigation because it offends some sense of propriety of some group or society. I will argue that in all human activities, like warfare, and politics, and driving, there are probably some rules for behavior that can and should be adopted. Otherwise, one would end up still condoning practices like torture and the "science" of Dr. Mengele. As uncomfortable as I am with imposing artificial boundaries on scientific inquiry, the potential coarsening of society that might result from unbridled investigations should give us all pause.
1105136
Insatable curiosity\n\nAbility to focus long term on a problem and persevere until it is solved.\n\nDisreguard for convention and rules. Few scientists of note did not have to buck the establishment to pursue the discoveries which made them famous. Many in fact were never believed in thier own lifetimes. \n\nAbility to logically diseminate between cause, action and fiction. That is the ability to analyze a phenomonon, seperate the phenonomon from the surrounding hype, hysteria, myth and scientific dogma. Then to break the phenonomon into understandable pieces. \n\nI'll disagree with one of the previous answers. Comunication skills is notably lacking in many scientists. Some very famous scientists were very notably anti-social or socially disfunctional. Often they were difficult to understand and more than a few had little patience with others. Eventually yes somebody else had to make heads or tails of what you were saying and disseminate it to others. Rarely is that the actual scientist.