User:Hans Adler/Science and Engineering Indicators
The Science and Engineering Indicators (SEI) appears every two years and is prepared by the Committee on Science and Engineering Indicators of the National Science Board.
The SEI is a compulsory exercise, required by the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1863 (j)(1)):
The Board shall render to the President and the Congress no later than January 15 of each even numbered year, a report on indicators of the state of science and engineering in the United States.
There is disagreement whether the SEI 2006 can be used as a source for the claim that belief in any of the following is "pseudoscientific belief":
- extrasensory perception (ESP)
- that houses can be haunted
- ghosts/that spirits of dead people can come back in certain places/situations,
- telepathy/communication between minds without using traditional senses,
- clairvoyance/the power of the mind to know the past and predict the future,
- astrology/that the position of the stars and planets can affect people's lives,
- that people can communicate mentally with someone who has died,
- witches,
- reincarnation/the rebirth of the soul in a new body after death,
- channeling/allowing a "spirit-being" to temporarily assume control of a body.
The list comes from Chapter 7, Section Public Knowledge About S&T, Subsection #Belief in Pseudoscience. This is more than mere nitpicking and pedantry, for the following reason:
All these areas can be uncontroversially described as paranormal. However, haunted houses (2), ghosts (3), clairvoyance (5), witches (8) and reincarnation (9) are not usually (or at least not uncontroversially) described as pseudoscience because the primary meanings associated with these areas lack a key characteristic of pseudosciences: pretending to be, or to be similar to, science.
The SEI 2006 only mentions these subjects in the context of "pseudoscience" and labels belief in any of them as "pseudoscientific belief". However, they are open about the list's origin: a Gallup Poll [1] which only refers to them as "paranormal". The SEI 2006 contains no explanation for the switch of terminology from "paranormal" to "pseudoscience". It also contains no explanation for the apparent contradiction between this list and a definition of pseudoscience which it quotes in the previous paragraph, and which (correctly) covers only topics which "appear [to be] scientific". The SEI 2006 does not explain why it considers belief in these topics to be "pseudoscientific belief", and it does not cite any source that could explain this. The tacit assumption of the SEI 2006 that belief in these fields is somehow related to pseudoscience would imply that belief in several mainstream religions (e.g. Hinduism, Buddhism) is also "pseudoscientific belief". This is not compatible with any of the notable approaches to the pseudoscience demarcation problem.
On 3 March the SEI 2006 reference was used as a pretext for applying Category:Pseudoscience to Haunted house, Ghost, Clairvoyance, Witchcraft and Reincarnation. It was also applied to several other articles where it makes more sense, with the same reason. These category additions added highly problematic text similar to the following:
The scientific consensus, as expressed by the National Science Foundation, has identified and described ten subjects, including extrasensory perception, and they consider belief in those subjects to be pseudoscientific beliefs.[1]"
- ^ Science and Engineering Indicators 2006, National Science Board, National Science Foundation. Belief in Pseudoscience. See Note 29. The 10 items are: extrasensory perception (ESP), that houses can be haunted, ghosts, telepathy, clairvoyance, astrology, that people can communicate mentally with someone who has died, witches, reincarnation, and channelling.
The editor in question insisted on these edits against some resistance. Ghost became the main battleground. An RfC at Talk:Ghost was followed by another RfC at WT:NPOV in an attempt to integrate the list of 10 paranormal areas as examples of pseudoscience into the pseudoscience passage of WP:NPOV as a footnote.
Variants of the problematic text are still present in several articles. In some cases they are being defended by other editors who maintain that they do not constitute misquotations.
Table of Contents
[edit]About Science and Engineering Indicators
[edit]Science and Engineering Indicators (SEI) is first and foremost a volume of record comprising the major high quality quantitative data on the U.S. and international science and engineering enterprise. SEI is factual and policy-neutral. It does not offer policy options and it does not make policy recommendations. SEI employs a variety of presentational styles—tables, figures, narrative text, bulleted text, web-based links, highlights, introductions, conclusions, reference lists—to make the data accessible to readers with different information needs and different information processing preferences.
The data are "indicators." Indicators are quantitative representations that might reasonably be thought to provide summary information bearing on the scope, quality, and vitality of the science and engineering enterprise. The indicators reported in SEI are intended to contribute to an understanding of the current environment and inform the development of future policies. [...]
SEI is prepared by the National Science Foundation's Division of Science Resources Statistics (SRS) on behalf of the National Science Board. It is subject to extensive review by outside experts, interested federal agencies, NSB members, and SRS internal reviewers for accuracy, coverage, and balance.
SEI includes more information about measurement than many readers unaccustomed to analyzing social and economic data may find easy to absorb. This information is included because readers need a good understanding of what the reported measures mean and how the data were collected in order to use the data appropriately. SEI's data analyses, however, are relatively accessible. The data can be examined in various ways, and SEI generally emphasizes neutral, factual description and avoids unconventional or controversial analysis. As a result, SEI almost exclusively uses simple statistical tools that should be familiar and accessible to most readers. Readers comfortable with numbers and percentages and equipped with a general conceptual understanding of terms such as "statistical significance" and "margin of error" will readily understand the statistical material in SEI.
SEI's Different Parts
[edit]SEI consists of seven chapters that follow a generally consistent pattern; an eighth chapter, on state indicators, presented in a unique format; and an overview that precedes these eight chapters. The chapter topics are
- Elementary and Secondary Education
- Higher Education in Science and Engineering
- Science and Engineering Labor Force
- Research and Development: Funds and Technology Linkages
- Academic Research and Development
- Industry, Technology, and the Global Marketplace
- Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Understanding
- State Indicators
[...]
- The Seven Core Chapters
Each chapter consists of front matter (table of contents and lists of sidebars, text tables, and figures), highlights, an introduction (chapter overview and chapter organization), a narrative synthesis of data and related contextual information, a conclusion, notes, a glossary, and references.
Highlights. [...] They also provide a brief version of the "meat" of the chapter.
Introduction. The chapter overview provides a brief explanation of why the topic of the chapter is important. It situates the topic in the context of major concepts, terms, and developments relevant to the data that the chapter reports. The introduction includes a brief narrative account of the logical flow of topics within the chapter.
Narrative. The chapter narrative is a descriptive synthesis that brings together significant findings. It is also a balanced presentation of contextual information that is useful for interpreting the findings. As a descriptive synthesis, the narrative aims to (1) enable the reader to comfortably assimilate a large amount of information by putting it in an order that facilitates comprehension and retention and (2) order the material so that major points readily come to the reader's attention. As a balanced presentation, the narrative aims to include appropriate caveats and context information such that (3) a non-expert reader will understand what uses of the data may or may not be appropriate, and (4) an expert reader will be satisfied that the presentation reflects a good understanding of the policy and fact context in which the data are interpreted by users with a range of science policy views.
[...]
References. SEI includes references to data sources cited in the text, stressing national or internationally comparable data. SEI does not review the analytic literature on a topic or summarize the social science or policy perspectives that might be brought to bear on it. References to that literature are included only where they are necessary to explain the basis for statements in the text. SEI does not reference many suggestive analyses of national and international patterns and trends that use more limited or less reliable data sources than those in SEI.
[...]
Letter of Transmittal
[edit]Dear Mr. President:
[...]
The Science Indicators series was designed to provide a broad base of quantitative information about US. science, engineering, and technology for use by public and private policymakers. With each new edition, the Board seeks to continually expand the data sources and pertinence to the broad user community. Science and Engineering Indicators 2006 contains analyses of key aspects of the scope, quality, and vitality of the Nation's science and engineering enterprise and global science and technology.
The report presents information on science, mathematics, and engineering education at all levels; the scientific and engineering workforce; US. and international research and development performance and competitiveness in high technology; and public attitudes and understanding of science and engineering. [...]
I hope that you, your Administration, and Congress will find the new quantitative information and analysis in the report useful and timely for informed thinking and planning on national priorities, policies, and programs in science and technology.
[...]
Acknowledgments
[edit]The National Science Board Members were closely involved in all phases of the preparation of this report. However, without the significant contributions of a number of NSF staff and others, this report would not be possible. Primary responsibility for the production of the volume was assigned to the Science and Engineering Indicators Program under the direction of Rolf Lehming of the Division of Science Resources Statistics (SRS); Lynda Carlson, Division Director; Mary J. Frase, Deputy Division Director; and the Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences, David W. Lightfoot, Assistant Director.
The authors of the manuscript were:
Overview. Rolf Lehming, SRS
Chapter 1. Martha Naomi Alt, Xianglei Chen, Jennifer Laird, MPR Associates; Lawrence Burton, SRS
Chapter 2. Joan S. Burrelli, SRS, Terry S. Woodin, EHR
Chapter 3. Mark C. Regets, SRS
Chapter 4. Francisco A. Moris, Brandon Shackelford, SRS
Chapter 5. Alan I. Rapoport, Derek Hill, Leslie Christovich, SRS
Chapter 6. Lawrence M. Rausch, SRS
Chapter 7. Melissa F. Pollak, SRS
Chapter 8. Paula C. Dunnigan, Greg A. Palovchik, Taratec Corporation
[...]
Chapter 7: Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Understanding
[edit]Highlights
[edit]Although Americans express strong support for science and technology (S&T), most are not very well informed about these subjects. The public's lack of knowledge about basic scientific facts and the scientific process can have far-reaching implications.
- Knowledge of basic scientific facts and concepts is necessary not only for an understanding of S&T-related issues but also for good citizenship. Knowing how science works—how ideas are investigated and either accepted or rejected—can help people evaluate the validity of various claims they encounter in daily life.
- Many in the scientific community are concerned that lack of knowledge about S&T may adversely affect the level of government support for research, the number of young people choosing S&T careers, and the public's resistance to miracle cures, get-rich-quick schemes, and other scams.
Information Sources
[edit]Television is still the main source of information about S&T, but the Internet is a strong competitor.
| more |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
The media can affect the public's view of scientific issues.
| more |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Public Interest in S&T
[edit]Evidence about the public's interest in S&T is mixed.
| more |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Public Knowledge About S&T
[edit]Most people do not think they are well informed about S&T. In fact, Americans generally know little about science, but they may be more knowledgeable than citizens of other countries.
| more |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Public Attitudes About Science-Related Issues
[edit]Most Americans have positive attitudes about the benefits of S&T, but some have reservations, including concerns about moral issues. Support for government funding of research is strong.
| more |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Recent surveys on topics ranging from the environment to nanotechnology reveal a variety of perceptions and concerns.
| more |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Most people have confidence in the scientific community and a high opinion of science as an occupation.
| more |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Introduction
[edit]Chapter Overview
[edit]Most Americans probably do not think about scientific research and technological development on a daily basis. Yet most recognize and appreciate the related benefits. Most Americans also strongly endorse the government's investment in research, whether or not it leads to tangible improvements in health and safety or the economy or to new technologies that make life easier or more enjoyable.
In fact, with few exceptions, science and technology (S&T) enjoy a positive reputation throughout the world. Most people believe that S&T play a key role in raising their standard of living and improving their quality of life. People around the world have been quick to embrace inventions that make living and working conditions better and businesses more profitable, including the latest advancements in communication technologies, such as the Internet, cellular telephones, and increasingly sophisticated types of entertainment delivery systems. Moreover, emerging fields such as nanotechnology seem to be receiving the public's endorsement.
Despite their favorable attitudes, most people do not know a lot about S&T. Many do not seem to have a firm understanding of basic scientific facts and concepts, knowledge that is necessary not only for an understanding of S&T-related issues but also for good citizenship. Even more worrisome is a lack of familiarity with the scientific process. Both scientists and public policymakers are concerned that the public's lack of knowledge about S&T may result in
- Less government support for research[1]
- Fewer young people choosing S&T careers
- Greater public susceptibility to miracle cures, get-rich-quick schemes, and other scams (NIST 2002)
Chapter Organization
[edit]This chapter examines aspects of the public's attitudes toward and understanding of S&T. In addition to data collected in surveys sponsored by the National Science Foundation (NSF), the chapter contains extensive information from studies and surveys undertaken by other organizations that track trends in media consumption and changes in public opinion on policy issues related to S&T. (See sidebar, "Data Sources.") One of these sources is an international project designed to measure attitudes toward various technologies in Europe, Canada, and the United States. Preliminary data from the United States and Canada (Canadian Biotechnology Secretariat 2005) are included in this chapter. In addition, for the first time, this chapter includes coverage of similar surveys conducted in Russia and several Asian countries.
The chapter is in three parts. The first part focuses on S&T-related information and interest. It begins with a section on sources of news and information, including a detailed look at the role of the Internet. It then examines several measures of public interest in S&T. (Level of interest indicates both the visibility of the science and engineering community's work and the relative importance accorded S&T by society.) The first part also briefly discusses the public's perception of how well informed it is about science-related issues.
The second part of the chapter covers knowledge of S&T. It explores three indicators of scientific literacy: familiarity with scientific terms and concepts, understanding of the scientific method, and belief in pseudoscience.
The third part examines public attitudes about science-related issues. It includes data on public opinion about S&T in general, support for federal funding of scientific research, views on environmental issues, and public confidence in the science community. It also presents information on how the public perceives the pros and cons of various technologies such as stem cell research, genetic engineering (including genetically modified foods), and the emerging field of nanotechnology.
Data Comparability
[edit]The surveys that provided the data included in this chapter were sponsored and conducted by a variety of organizations, for different purposes, using different items in varying order and context. Therefore, their results are not directly comparable. This is particularly true for surveys done in other countries, where language and cultural differences add further complexities. (However, it should be noted that many items included in the NSF Survey of Public Attitudes Toward and Understanding of Science and Technology were replicated-to the greatest extent possible-in all countries covered in this chapter.) Thus, the findings presented in this chapter summarize broad patterns and trends emerging from these diverse sources. [...]
[...]
Information Sources, Interest, and Perceived Knowledge
[edit][...]
Public Knowledge About S&T
[edit]Understanding Scientific Terms and Concepts
[edit][...]
Understanding the Scientific Process
[edit][...]
Belief in Pseudoscience
[edit]Although S&T are held in high esteem throughout the modern world, pseudoscientific beliefs continue to thrive. Such beliefs coexist alongside society's professed respect for science and the scientific process.
A recent study of 20 years of survey data collected by NSF concluded that "many Americans accept pseudoscientific beliefs," such as astrology, lucky numbers, the existence of unidentified flying objects (UFOs), extrasensory perception (ESP), and magnetic therapy (Losh et al. 2003). Such beliefs indicate a lack of understanding of how science works and how evidence is investigated and subsequently determined to be either valid or not. Scientists, educators, and others are concerned that people have not acquired the critical thinking skills they need to distinguish fact from fiction. The science community and those whose job it is to communicate information about science to the public have been particularly concerned about the public's susceptibility to unproven claims that could adversely affect their health, safety, and pocketbooks (NIST 2002). (See sidebar, "Sense About Science.")
Pseudoscience has been defined as "claims presented so that they appear [to be] scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility" (Shermer 1997, p. 33).[28] In contrast, science is "a set of methods designed to describe and interpret observed and inferred phenomena, past or present, and aimed at building a testable body of knowledge open to rejection or confirmation" (Shermer 1997, p. 17).
| Footnote [28] |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
[28] According to one group studying such phenomena, pseudoscientific topics include yogi flying, therapeutic touch, astrology, fire walking, voodoo magical thinking, alternative medicine, channeling, Carlos hoax, psychic hotlines and detectives, near-death experiences, unidentified flying objects and alien abductions, the Bermuda Triangle, homeopathy, faith healing, and reincarnation (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal 2003). |
Belief in pseudoscience increased significantly during the 1990s and into the early part of this decade (Newport and Strausberg 2001) and then fell somewhat between 2001 and 2005 (figure 7-8 figure.). The largest declines were in the number of people who believe in ESP, clairvoyance, ghosts, mentally communicating with the dead, and channeling. Nevertheless, about three-fourths of Americans hold at least one pseudoscientific belief; i.e., they believed in at least 1 of the 10 survey items (similar to the percentage recorded in 2001).[29] In addition, 22% believed in five or more of the items, 32% believed in four, and 57% believed in two. However, only 1% believed in all 10 (Moore 2005b).
| Footnote [29] |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
[29] Those 10 items were extrasensory perception (ESP), that houses can be haunted, ghosts/that spirits of dead people can come back in certain places/situations, telepathy/communication between minds without using traditional senses, clairvoyance/the power of the mind to know the past and predict the future, astrology/that the position of the stars and planets can affect people's lives, that people can communicate mentally with someone who has died, witches, reincarnation/the rebirth of the soul in a new body after death, and channeling/allowing a "spirit-being" to temporarily assume control of a body. |
Belief in pseudoscience is widespread. For example, at least a quarter of the U.S. population believes in astrology, i.e., that the position of the stars and planets can affect people's lives. Although two-thirds (66%) of those queried in 2004 said that astrology is "not at all scientific," about one-third considered it at least "sort of scientific" (appendix table 7-14 Excel table.).[30]
Belief in astrology may be more prevalent in Europe. In 2001, 53% of Europeans surveyed thought astrology is "rather scientific" and only a minority (39%) said it is not at all scientific. In the 2005 survey, Europeans were asked whether or not they considered certain subjects to be scientific, using a 5-point scale (with higher values indicating that a subject is more scientific). About 4 out of 10 (41%) of those surveyed gave responses of 4 or 5 for astrology, the same as the score for economics. However, when the survey used the word "horoscopes" instead of astrology, only 13% gave a response of 4 or 5. Disciplines most likely to be considered scientific by Europeans were medicine (89%), physics (83%), biology (75%), mathematics (72%), astronomy (70%), and psychology (53%). History (34%) and homeopathy (33%) were at the bottom of the list (European Commission 2005a). Comparable U.S. data on the various disciplines do not exist.
Europeans were more likely than Americans to agree that "some numbers are particularly lucky for some people." The percentages in Europe were 37% (2005) and 32% (2001).[31]
In the United States, skepticism about astrology is strongly related to level of education: in 2004, 81% of college graduates said that astrology is "not at all scientific," compared with 51% of those with less than a high school education and 62% of those who had completed high school but not college. In Europe, however, respondents with college degrees were just as likely as others to claim that astrology is scientific.
In the United States, belief in astrology is also related to level of income (which, in turn, is related to education). Those in higher income brackets were less likely than others to say that astrology is either very or sort of scientific.
Like astrology in the United States and Europe, fortune telling is common in China and South Korea. However, only 1% of Chinese survey respondents said fortune telling is very scientific and 10% thought it is "a bit" scientific. In contrast, 74% answered either "not at all scientific" or "not very scientific." A similar item on a South Korean survey showed a larger percentage (37%) of respondents answering either "very scientific" or "sort of scientific" (figure 7-9 figure.; appendix table 7-15 Excel table.).
Surveys conducted by NSF and other organizations suggest that at least half of the U.S. public believes in the existence of ESP (CBS News 2002), and a sizable minority believes in UFOs and that aliens have landed on Earth. In the 2001 NSF survey, 60% of respondents agreed that "some people possess psychic powers or ESP," and 30% agreed that "some of the unidentified flying objects that have been reported are really space vehicles from other civilizations." Similarly, one-third of the Chinese respondents (33%) believed in the existence of aliens.
Public Attitudes About Science-Related Issues
[edit][...]