[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Cipher13 

For the record, the earth-sun barycenter is indeed inside the sun.

Good to know, thanks.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Really? Unless you've paid the $7.95 to read the Abstract, I'm not sure how you'd know this. I'm not able to find it any other way. It should be noted however that "Dr. Miller" enjoys funding from various sources for his research. For credibilities' sake, it is often good information to have. When it's provided of course.

Issues of bias and whatnot asside, the NYT is still a legitimate and respected news source. They attribute their sources.

As for Dr. Miller's funding, I'm not sure what you're getting at. All scientists 'enjoy funding from various sources for [their] research'. This is the nature of science: someone has to pay you before you can afford to do research. Unless you're trying to imply that there's some monied body out there with an interest in guiding the results of scientific interest to discredit the state of American education I don't really see what could possibly be productive in looking at the sources of his funding.

I'm glad this is important to you now. It didn't seem to me you were very interested in validating any of the claims by openly supplying any of this information in the first place and neither did the article to which you linked. Usually, I've had good luck finding original survey/polling data. In this case for whatever reason, it is not as readily available.

Of course I recognize the importance of using credible sources and the importance of maintaining a scientific skepticism about things. That doesn't mean that I can't find an article interesting before I've ascertained that it's entirely credible. Nor does it mean that there's no value to scientifically invalid studies and reports. They still tell us something interesting about the people/society that wrote/read them. And yes, I find it interesting to know what sorts of things people will believe without adequate evidence. Possibly this is related to the fact that I'm soon going to be applying to anthropology PhD programs...

NEW YORK TIMES is not a science publication nor is it an educational endeavor. I've looked and have yet to see any raw data in order to decide for myself. I'm not saying it's not true, but I'd like more information to make an educated decision.

Agreed, but that doesn't mean that this article is of no value or interest.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Really? Unless you've paid the $7.95 to read the Abstract, I'm not sure how you'd know this. I'm not able to find it any other way. It should be noted however that "Dr. Miller" enjoys funding from various sources for his research. For credibilities' sake, it is often good information to have. When it's provided of course.


I'm glad this is important to you now. It didn't seem to me you were very interested in validating any of the claims by openly supplying any of this information in the first place and neither did the article to which you linked. Usually, I've had good luck finding original survey/polling data. In this case for whatever reason, it is not as readily available.

NEW YORK TIMES is not a science publication nor is it an educational endeavor. I've looked and have yet to see any raw data in order to decide for myself. I'm not saying it's not true, but I'd like more information to make an educated decision.

I think it's referring to a survey published in this NSF document. The survey results and questions are in an excel spreadsheet, appendix table 7-9.

For what it's worth, what bothers me about how these surveys are reported is that they're presented as unique to Americans, when in fact no international comparisons were made.

[ghporter]

The problem is that today's "education" is so focused on standardized testing that there is no context, nor any motivation to retain anything. Kids get that material and actually get tested on it. But it's not fun, so once they don't have to worry about some test that will retain them in school if they don't do well, they forget it. Motivating a student is not particularly easy sometimes, but it is the key to producing an educated student, not just some zombie that will generate test scores for you.

Of course not a lot of people take this sort of survey seriously either. I know quite a few people who would go to some lengths to mess with a pollster asking this sort of question.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I think it's referring to a survey published in this NSF document. The survey results and questions are in an excel spreadsheet, appendix table 7-9.

For what it's worth, what bothers me about how these surveys are reported is that they're presented as unique to Americans, when in fact no international comparisons were made.

Thanx for the links. I did manage to find a bit on the International comparisons; Using the 100-point index described above, the United States, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Great Britain all produced mean scores of between 53 and 55. (See figure 7-10 and appendix table 7-12.) Although the years in which the data were collected from the other countries range from 1989 to 1992, the provision of the three time periods for the United States illustrates the stability of the U.S. estimate; there is no basis for assuming a more rapid change in other major industrial nations.

At least we're not the absolute least adept at the general concepts of science, but seeing as we're spending more per student than most of the above... well, see education thread.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Issues of bias and whatnot asside, the NYT is still a legitimate and respected news source. They attribute their sources.

I agree with this. In most cases it is more readily available as an online source. At least, in my limited experience with these types of articles.

As for Dr. Miller's funding, I'm not sure what you're getting at. All scientists 'enjoy funding from various sources for [their] research'. This is the nature of science: someone has to pay you before you can afford to do research.

Let me put it this way, if I were to quote a host of scientists who do not wholesale agree with the degree of man's contribution to global warming and you were to find that these scientists and their research was funded by Opec, you may find a small problem there. I merely said it is important to at least know this information.

Unless you're trying to imply that there's some monied body out there with an interest in guiding the results of scientific interest to discredit the state of American education I don't really see what could possibly be productive in looking at the sources of his funding.

If the source of funding was; Public Attitudes Toward Science and Technology and the aim was to measure scientific aptitude among Americans to emphasize the need for political action regarding better methodology in our educational system and if you (as a political scientist) had a history of working closely with the government in trying to improve these standards; is it possible to advocate change through an emotional appeal? Yes. Is it possible to manipulate survey and polling data to support your position? Absolutely.

Of course I recognize the importance of using credible sources and the importance of maintaining a scientific skepticism about things. That doesn't mean that I can't find an article interesting before I've ascertained that it's entirely credible. Nor does it mean that there's no value to scientifically invalid studies and reports. They still tell us something interesting about the people/society that wrote/read them. And yes, I find it interesting to know what sorts of things people will believe without adequate evidence. Possibly this is related to the fact that I'm soon going to be applying to anthropology PhD programs...

What is it you seek to challenge/learn from your interest in anthropology? I agree, the article is interesting.

Agreed, but that doesn't mean that this article is of no value or interest.

The actual data is often much more interesting than a news article explaining it. Scientists are generally a lot more calculated, dry, and sober in their rhetoric than the average news rag for obvious reasons. I challenged the article, not necessarily the study itself though I was glad to see more info on it. It did help put the research in perspective.