At school, we all learn basic skills read/write to understand each other. But in today's society, a basic grasp of science, a minimal level of scientific literacy is crucial to swim through our techno-society.
To this day, I cannot picture the void in someone's head that doesn't know how computers work. It would surely give a sour taste of powerlessness. Same can be said about anything that explains how the world around us revolves.
Some simpler folks need simple world - if this, then that. Critical thinking, complex topics, more than 1 truth etc are just too much. This yes, this no. This confirms my fears/makes me happy to hear, I will vote for it. Of course they are frustrated. But in much simpler way than you would probably imagine, and for shorter time. And quite possibly they don't know that they don't know how computers work. Look, they can turn it on and click on icon and it works. Mission accomplished.
To be honest my mom also doesn't know how computers work, and she has an university degree in economics from times where it was really hard to even get to university back home.
Indeed, the only points of contact between the comments I can find is where you agree with GP comment, namely that scientific literacy is necessary.
maybe 'jojo2000's comment has been changed, but it currently says "I deeply agree," not "I disagree"
I think that the main problem of the modern education systems is not that people don't learn some basic things, but that they forget that knowledge very fast as they don't use it after they finish their education, and education itself. So everything abstract and not obviously useful for life or job is under constant threat of removal from the programs by the pressure from adults complaining that kids these days learn too much unnecessary things as these adults forgot what these things were for.
As an alternative I imagine a system where education never stops, so for example instead of a person abruptly leaving an education institution and starting a job we would have a gradual change in the number of days in the week dedicated to the education and to the work, with at least one day (I propose Wednesday as a middle of the work week) staying dedicated to the education for the rest of the live.
I understand that it all sounds very idealistic and hackernewsish because for the most people the school is a kind of jail that they want to leave as soon as possible, but seems like Scandinavian model sort of solved that. And of course all education must be public and free.
With that said, I think it mainly refers to actually bullcrap research that sometimes comes out of Western (and for some reason, mostly British) universities. For example, back when radio was a thing and I was listening to it in public transportation, the radio hosts would bring up these faux science papers - e.g. "Some British University found out that chocolate actually helps you lose weight. That's some great news to start off the weekend". And after a million of these papers that were most likely flawed in methodology, misinterpreted by media or simply fake, what would you expect?
The catch is high cocoa content chocolate (>80%) is an appetite inhibiter. So the recommendation is that people who need the "sweets/sugar" rush in certain situations to eat a piece of dark chocolate, because it gives them the "rush", but also reduces their appetite, unlike many other sweets which have been designed to want more.
Many words just to say that often this is more about the science reporting than the science.
That was a hoax to expose bad science reporting, not bad science itself. So the radio fell for it too.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/05/28/410313446/wh...
Individual Democrats are often scientifically ignorant, on a wide variety of issues. But they haven't made hostility to science a party party platform, the way it has for a long time with climate change and evolution.
I am not suggesting everyone need learn quantum mechanics, but a basic, qualitative understanding of "science" (uncertainty, experimentation, theory) would help understanding and decision making. In the case of COVID-19: when I read the breathless reports on vaccine announcements, potential treatments and mitigation techniques, most of the popular discussion is profoundly confused. Likewise on climate change. In both cases, as with so many, the need to describe the story 1 - as a clash or people, or as originating in a person whose backstory must take up most of the article and 2 - the need to push the point of the article close to one pole or another (sometimes made up by the author) completely obscures the point.
This is no way to make policy, or, for that matter, live life.
* I think the degree to which this meme is developed (e.g. "democrats are the party of science") is grossly overplayed, even when there are a couple of convenient examples to point it at.