1 in 4 Americans unaware that Earth circles Sun

[oyarde]

19?


After prep school, then community college, I think I was around 24 as a freshman.

I think I had been in the Army for 7 or 8 years when I was 24.

 

[MelissaWV]

When somebody makes a statement such as the one above, I usually attempt to change the subject so I don't have to argue with the person who made it. Because of this, it would be understandable some people would nod and hope the subject gets changed.

My parents were watching TV the other day. Some commercial mentioned saving money by mentioning the president on each bill. My mother asked "Which bill is Grant on?" and my dad promptly responded "He's on the twenty." I gave my mom a very long look to let her know there was something wrong there, but did not correct dad

 

[oyarde]

My parents were watching TV the other day. Some commercial mentioned saving money by mentioning the president on each bill. My mother asked "Which bill is Grant on?" and my dad promptly responded "He's on the twenty." I gave my mom a very long look to let her know there was something wrong there, but did not correct dad

Yeah , well I hardly see any Grant's anymore , everything @ the money mover are Jackson's , gas station change all Hamilton , Lincoln & Washington , bank , just Ben's and Jacksons .

 

[Danke]

I think I had been in the Army for 7 or 8 years when I was 24.

And still saluting my car as I drove by, no wait a minute, that was the Marines that did that.

 

[oyarde]

And still saluting my car as I drove by, no wait a minute, that was the Marines that did that.

LOL , no , I was never anyplace where there were cars to salute , that's pretty funny , probably better for me since I probably would have forgotten to get around to it . Trade off though , those guys get to eat , take showers , sleep in beds , stuff like that .

 

[Danke]

LOL , no , I was never anyplace where there were cars to salute , that's pretty funny , probably better for me since I probably would have forgotten to get around to it . Trade off though , those guys get to eat , take showers , sleep in beds , stuff like that .

Hot showers, you forgot that, hot showers and usually private rooms. I always felt a little bit guilty flying over "tent city" early in the morning in full afterburners.

Oh well, if I had to be up early in the morning going to Iraq, so did everyone else.

 

[oyarde]

Hot showers, you forgot that, hot showers and usually private rooms. I always felt a little bit guilty flying over "tent city" early in the morning in full afterburners.

Oh well, if I had to be up early in the morning going to Iraq, so did everyone else.

I remember once walking about ten Klicks at night to take a shower , I had not had one in a couple months, snuck into a school , showered , of course there was no hot water, walking back , I tripped into a ditch full of mud and concertina wire. I had sent my guys to the same place when it was daylight, so I get back , muddy , bloody , they were like ," thought you were going to take a shower " .

 

[Danke]

I heard the Earth was created first? So doesn't the Universe revolve around the Earth?

 

[brushfire]

Winter is coming.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Yeah, I would hate to be an 18 year old American, thinking about his prospects and what college will actually get him in a crumbling society.

Guess I was also one of those suckers awed by the knowledge of the PhD on TV. It's sort of funny because all of my in-laws in another country barely have any grade school education. I am however, often in awe of their life skills. They perform such manual skills with all the dexterity and humbleness often lacking in the American. What is really funny is how they are somewhat shy around me because I'm this formally educated American. The area in which they live and its many freedoms are really a pipe dream for people like us.

I'm 19 and currently in college. I want to teach history, yeah, I know my odds are probably not much better than getting locked up under the NDAA for challenging orthodoxy, but hey, what's a young man to do?

 

[Occam's Banana]

I wonder if Doyle would present the case the same today in this information age. Perhaps he would use a more esoteric example. It is just too unbelievable that the modern age Holmes with his fine education would not know something so basic. He must've been a horrible student.

I don't recall if Doyle ever addressed the question of Holmes' formal education - but he very probably was indeed a horrible student.

And I'm not sure the "information age" factor would have made much difference to Doyle's portrayal of Holmes. In fact, a "modern" Doyle might have used Holmes to make a number of trenchant observations on the matter - such as that the greater availability of "facts" and "information" does NOT automatically translate into greater or more widespread "knowledge" or "understanding" (let alone an inclination or even ability to "know" or "understand"). An Age of Information is NOT necessarily an Age of Understanding ...

Also, I don't accept the premise that the mind is finite and gets cluttered. If that were true someone like Gary North who has read over ten thousand books would be rendered a practical idiot.

Yeah, this one I have to agree with you on. But even then, Doyle wasn't trying to portray Holmes as being necessarily correct about this - it's just what Holmes eccentrically believed. (Recall that Doyle's "point of view" character was Watson, who represented all of us "normal" people - and who found the whole thing to be quite incredible ...)

And with respect to my previous comments above, I can just see Holmes declaring that he didn't need to "clutter his brain" with the fact of heliocentrism (even if he ever did have any use for it) because he could simply look it up online if it were ever actually needed.

It's understanding how to effectively use such information as you do have (or are able to "look up") that is truly important - NOT being aware of this, that or the other particular piece of information (such as "the Earth goes around the Sun"). That, I think, is the true & fundamental essence of "human potential" - all the rest (like geocentrism, heliocentrism, etc.) is "just details" ...

I don't think the article said these 25% believe in an alternate theory, such as geocentricism. I took it to mean that these are people who lack so much curiosity about the world around them that they just haven't a clue. I've met people like this and it saddens me to think of their children who's prospects for life stand a great chance of being hobbled. But, the world does need ditch diggers, as they say.

But for the overwhelmingly vast majority of people, the fact the the Earth goes around the Sun (rather than the other way around) is no more significant, important or useful than the fact that Elvis Presley was a very popular singer. Most people "know" both of these things (the poll, after all, indicates that "3 in 4 Americans are aware that the Earth cricles the Sun") - but they "know" these things without understanding them. So when we "get down to brass tacks," are they really any different from the people who do NOT know them?

They are, after all, just regurgitating a dictum adopted by rote during their "educations" - or (in the case of Elvis) absorbed from popular culture. How many of the people who allegedly "understand" that the Earth circles the Sun could say what any of Newton's Laws of Motion are - let alone actually apply them to solve practical problems? So why not consign all those people to ditch-digging duty, too? Certified public accountants & urologists (even the ones who "know" that the Earth goes around the Sun) are not one bit "better" in this regard. They may be more likely to win at Jeopardy!, perhaps - but beyond that, what practical difference is there between them and those who have been deemed worthy only of digging ditches?

I stand by what I said about the cook. The cook who understands the processes involved will always be better than the one who's only ability is that of being able to read a recipe. You don't think the same goes for a farmer? I would think at the very least there would be a lot more trial and error, not to mention less crop yields over time--not because of not knowing the earth circles the sun necessarily but because of being the type of person who does not know this.

But in this case, I don't think your "cook" analogy applies to the farmer at all (or to the consulting detective). There was not one bit more (or less) "trial and error" involved in farming when the geocentric model prevailed than after the advent of heliocentrism (e.g., the seasons were every bit as predictable, etc.). Geocentrism vs. heliocentricism was (and is) as irrelevant to farming as electrical engineering is to a cook. (Note that none of those things are "ingredients" of what farmers or cooks actually do). A "modern" cook needs electricity to power his stoves & ovens - but he does NOT need to have even the least accurate or "correct" idea (or even any idea at all) about what electricity "really is" and "how it works" in order to be an excellent cook. It's the same with farmers. As long as the Sun "moves" with predictable regularity, it doesn't matter to the farmer (or affect, say, his sowing or reaping calculations one way or the other) if that regularity is "really" because the Earth goes around the Sun or vice versa. Either way would make for the "same difference."

I get what you're saying (as I noted before, I personally love the "hard" sciences - physics, chemistry, and especially astronomy). And from an "aesthetic" rather than "pragmatic" perspective, I don't really disagree with what you're getting at. But I believe that, ultimately, being "up to date" in those areas is "aesthetically" supplemental to - rather than "pragmatically" necessary for - Man to exist at his full potential.

This seems to rest on the premise that information storage is limited in the minds of men and that too much knowledge can actually harm them. I argue against this and that the more sentient, the more curious a person the more they endeavor to learn and increase their marketability--besides being more fulfilled by having their full potential further realized.

What I said doesn't have anything at all to do with any limits on the "storage capacity" of mens' minds. It certainly does NOT suggest in any way that "too much knowledge can actually harm them." What it does suggest is that a lot of "knowledge" (along the lines of "the Earth goes around the Sun") simply isn't useful to or necessary for most people to "understand" ...

I explictly and emphatically reject the notion that it necessary for people to "know" such things in order to achieve their "full potential" as human beings (whatever that might actually mean). For one thing, such a notion suggests that achieving "full potential" is contingent upon merely being aware of the prevailing consensus of the day, rather than (or as a substitute for) actually "knowing" or "understanding" how the world "really" is (whatever that might actually be). After all, geocentrism, as "wrong" as it is, was THE prevailing model of the Solar System for millenia - and for some very good reasons. For one thing, it fit all the most easily & immediately observable facts. For another, "johnny-come-lately" competing models had serious defects (such as an absence of observable stellar parallax in heliocentric models).

The geocentrism vs. heliocentrism issue provides a perfect illustration of "our" changing, mutable, impermanent and imperfect "understandings" of "how the world really is." It provides an excellent demonstration of why we should NOT base our assessment of Man's ability to achieve his "full potential" upon the ability of some percentage of the population to recite the basics of the prevailing models of physical reality at any given point in time (including that of here, now, and today ...).

I agree. But Holmes does not make your case; he is a work of fiction. I contend that the person curious enough to know something so basic will be more successful in practically every endeavor short of mindless menial labor--an area I suspect is heavily populated by these so called dark dwellers.

Holmes is just an illustration of the general principle. There are plenty of people who are "curious enough to know something so basic" who nevertheless could not succeed in thinking their way out of the proverbial "wet paper sack." And then there's my earlier point that the vast majority of people who "know something so basic" do not actually "know" it because they are curious or have any desire to understand how the world "really" works, but merely because they are regurgitating what they "learned" by rote. Such people are not any "better" than the people who failed to "learn" that particular tidbit of (what to all of them is ultimately irrelevant) trivia ...

IOW: There is no reason for thinking that most of those who are able to successfully regurgitate the central thesis of heliocentrism are any more "curious" (or have any greater "understanding" of things) than those who are not so able. But that's okay. They don't need to be. For most people, this stuff is at best "gravy," not "meat." Such "divisions of understanding" are as natural and unobjectionable as "divisions of labor" - in fact, I would say that they actually are "divisions of labor," just like any other ...

 

[jtap]

F polls (and Frank Luntz (joke based on embedded video)) and surveys and number manipulation and the media that thrives on it. People are usually trying to get a rise out of you and skewing the data anyway.



Full Penn and Teller BS episode on Numbers
part1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62rkSS6Y_7Y
part2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBL2QfgQES4
part3 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY0U_x8PHDg

 

[green73]

I don't recall if Doyle ever addressed the question of Holmes' formal education - but he very probably was indeed a horrible student.

And I'm not sure the "information age" factor would have made much difference to Doyle's portrayal of Holmes. In fact, a "modern" Doyle might have used Holmes to make a number of trenchant observations on the matter - such as that the greater availability of "facts" and "information" does NOT automatically translate into greater or more widespread "knowledge" or "understanding" (let alone an inclination or even ability to "know" or "understand"). An Age of Information is NOT necessarily an Age of Understanding ...



Yeah, this one I have to agree with you on. But even then, Doyle wasn't trying to portray Holmes as being necessarily correct about this - it's just what Holmes eccentrically believed. (Recall that Doyle's "point of view" character was Watson, who represented all of us "normal" people - and who found the whole thing to be quite incredible ...)

And with respect to my previous comments above, I can just see Holmes declaring that he didn't need to "clutter his brain" with the fact of heliocentrism (even if he ever did have any use for it) because he could simply look it up online if it were ever actually needed.

It's understanding how to effectively use such information as you do have (or are able to "look up") that is truly important - NOT being aware of this, that or the other particular piece of information (such as "the Earth goes around the Sun"). That, I think, is the true & fundamental essence of "human potential" - all the rest (like geocentrism, heliocentrism, etc.) is "just details" ...



But for the overwhelmingly vast majority of people, the fact the the Earth goes around the Sun (rather than the other way around) is no more significant, important or useful than the fact that Elvis Presley was a very popular singer. Most people "know" both of these things (the poll, after all, indicates that "3 in 4 Americans are aware that the Earth cricles the Sun") - but they "know" these things without understanding them. So when we "get down to brass tacks," are they really any different from the people who do NOT know them?

They are, after all, just regurgitating a dictum adopted by rote during their "educations" - or (in the case of Elvis) absorbed from popular culture. How many of the people who allegedly "understand" that the Earth circles the Sun could say what any of Newton's Laws of Motion are - let alone actually apply them to solve practical problems? So why not consign all those people to ditch-digging duty, too? Certified public accountants & urologists (even the ones who "know" that the Earth goes around the Sun) are not one bit "better" in this regard. They may be more likely to win at Jeopardy!, perhaps - but beyond that, what practical difference is there between them and those who have been deemed worthy only of digging ditches?



But in this case, I don't think your "cook" analogy applies to the farmer at all (or to the consulting detective). There was not one bit more (or less) "trial and error" involved in farming when the geocentric model prevailed than after the advent of heliocentrism (e.g., the seasons were every bit as predictable, etc.). Geocentrism vs. heliocentricism was (and is) as irrelevant to farming as electrical engineering is to a cook. (Note that none of those things are "ingredients" of what farmers or cooks actually do). A "modern" cook needs electricity to power his stoves & ovens - but he does NOT need to have even the least accurate or "correct" idea (or even any idea at all) about what electricity "really is" and "how it works" in order to be an excellent cook. It's the same with farmers. As long as the Sun "moves" with predictable regularity, it doesn't matter to the farmer (or affect, say, his sowing or reaping calculations one way or the other) if that regularity is "really" because the Earth goes around the Sun or vice versa. Either way would make for the "same difference."



What I said doesn't have anything at all to do with any limits on the "storage capacity" of mens' minds. It certainly does NOT suggest in any way that "too much knowledge can actually harm them." What it does suggest is that a lot of "knowledge" (along the lines of "the Earth goes around the Sun") simply isn't useful to or necessary for most people to "understand" ...

I explictly and emphatically reject the notion that it necessary for people to "know" such things in order to achieve their "full potential" as human beings (whatever that might actually mean). For one thing, such a notion suggests that achieving "full potential" is contingent upon merely being aware of the prevailing consensus of the day, rather than (or as a substitute for) actually "knowing" or "understanding" how the world "really" is (whatever that might actually be). After all, geocentrism, as "wrong" as it is, was THE prevailing model of the Solar System for millenia - and for some very good reasons. For one thing, it fit all the most easily & immediately observable facts. For another, "johnny-come-lately" competing models had serious defects (such as an absence of observable stellar parallax in heliocentric models).

The geocentrism vs. heliocentrism issue provides a perfect illustration of "our" changing, mutable, impermanent and imperfect "understandings" of "how the world really is." It provides an excellent demonstration of why we should NOT base our assessment of Man's ability to achieve his "full potential" upon the ability of some percentage of the population to recite the basics of the prevailing models of physical reality at any given point in time (including that of here, now, and today ...).



Holmes is just an illustration of the general principle. There are plenty of people who are "curious enough to know something so basic" who nevertheless could not succeed in thinking their way out of the proverbial "wet paper sack." And then there's my earlier point that the vast majority of people who "know something so basic" do not actually "know" it because they are curious or have any desire to understand how the world "really" works, but merely because they are regurgitating what they "learned" by rote. Such people are not any "better" than the people who failed to "learn" that particular tidbit of (what to all of them is ultimately irrelevant) trivia ...

IOW: There is no reason for thinking that most of those who are able to successfully regurgitate the central thesis of heliocentrism are any more "curious" (or have any greater "understanding" of things) than those who are not so able. But that's okay. They don't need to be. For most people, this stuff is at best "gravy," not "meat." Such "divisions of understanding" are as natural and unobjectionable as "divisions of labor" - in fact, I would say that they actually are "divisions of labor," just like any other ...

When you put forth the point that there are people who know of geocentricism but only as a fact to be regurgitated without any underlying understanding, I suppose you are right to some extent, but don't forget that knowing this begs the question "why?" Why does the earth circle the sun? Why does it not fly off in one direction? This leads to further inquiry and understanding. If they don't have enough curiosity to answer this then your point is valid; these people are no more curious than those who haven't a clue about the arrangement. In fact, they might even be worse. Also, the 'why' might have been drilled into them, and they remembered it for an exam, but without the requisite curiosity they're likely to forget.

But I made a point in my last post, which I don't think you've addressed, that the person curious enough to find the answers to the questions that arise, is going to be a better cook, gardener, farmer, detective, not as some sort of reward for possessing "useless" facts, but because of being the type of person who aspires to understand. They are going to be better equipped to address problems as they arise and they are going to be more creative and likely to develop better methods. And I believe that being a mental robot (just knowing facts without understanding) is in the realm of the idiot savant. There has be understanding at some point, else the person will likely forget.

So this is what I'm saying: The more curious the person the more successful they will be, everything else being equal. It is a shame that so many lack curiosity and can spend a lifetime under the sun and the moon and never ask 'why'?

 

[FindLiberty]

Winter is coming.

Chance the Gardener: Yes. In the garden, growth has it seasons.

 

[kpitcher]

Heck, science doesn't even know if that's the truth.

Evolution is accepted as the best scientific theory by pretty much every real scientist out there, 97% +

Although with the US falling behind the rest of the world in STEM that number is lower in the US.

 

[DamianTV]

We're #1! At being Dead Last...

 

[William Tell]

To be an idiosyncratic and singular mind like a Sherlock Holmes, you have to be consistently non-conformist, not just that way as it bears on comfortable subjects. What Holmes was "ignorant" of was several of the common presumptions people accept to count themselves as being "informed," especially when the view is irrelevant to one's actual line of work. The character had the humble intellect to not care what his position sounded like to others, as he was not putting on airs about being a Renaissance man, and it did not relate to his investigative career.

No one has been on an absolutely motionless rock outside of this planet to watch the motion of the bodies, to tell with finality what is revolving around what. All observations or calculations short of that are non-absolute, pragmatic presumptions, and subject to dispute. So while I think the earth revolves around the sun, based on what seem to be practical considerations, I don't "know" that is the fact of the matter. If people presumed wrongly on this issue for thousands of years, it is possible we have presumed wrongly for hundreds of years. We should all pray to have the humble genius of Holmes.

Well said. I loved that passage from the Study in Scarlet.

 

[Dr.3D]

Evolution is accepted as the best scientific theory by pretty much every real scientist out there, 97% +

Although with the US falling behind the rest of the world in STEM that number is lower in the US.

Yeah, they accept it as the best scientific theory, but they still don't know if it's the truth.

 

[Ronin Truth]

What percentage of Americans are aware that the Earth ellipses the Sun?

 

[Acala]

Yeah, they accept it as the best scientific theory, but they still don't know if it's the truth.

A scientific theory is like the heavyweight champion of the world - it can only claim the title of truth until some inconvenient fact knocks it out of the ring. But the longer it stays in the ring, taking on all comers, the more of a bad ass it is seen to be. The theory of the origin of species by natural selection is the BIGGEST bad ass in the biological science.