I missed 3 questions. the Same 2 as GAD (3 and 9) as well as 7 because who the hell knows how to measure chalk. I thought a lot of those were pretty dumb questions to be asking. A lot of them require specific lab experience that if you are not a laboratory scientist, you probably forgot years ago.
I counted anything I’d have to blindly guess as a miss. I missed 3 and 9 as well, and I object to 10, because it presumes the Northern Hemisphere as the referent. The seasons are about how directly we face the Sun (the resolution/intensity of sunlight on the Earth’s surface where we are), not distance. The difference in the angle/intensity of sunlight can be dramatic (noon vs. dawn/dusk) while the difference in our distance from the sun at aphelion vs. perihelion is a tiny fraction. The question kinda completely failed to address any of that, which is the point ... I think (i.e. it’s meant a measure of knowledge rather than understanding).
Re: 7, the metric answers from which to choose are (randomized):
Kilometer, Meter, Decimeter, Liter, Gram.
The rough English analogs to those measures would be a half a mile, a yard, four inches, a quart, and a few hundredths of a dry ounce. I did have to look some of those up to get them that close, but even still, just recognizing that they would best be translated into miles, yards, quarts, inches (a few), and a small fraction of an ounce is enough. The two measures of volume don’t even apply to length, and the literal translations of the metric length terms are 1,000 meters, 1 meter, and 1/10th of a meter. So, bottom line, whether a piece of chalk is more appropriately measured/estimated in terms of inches, yards or miles isn’t exactly a mystery. It pretty much comes down to A) understanding the units of measure, and B) reading carefully enough. I’d be willing to bet the latter accounts for the vast majority of mistakes on that one.
I agree with their assessment, but it seems fairly obvious. Whether you know what color litmus paper turns when you dunk HCl in it has no impact on what you believe. Well, DUH! Also, how well you do on Jeopardy has no impact on your religious beliefs. In other news, two unrelated things are unrelated. Science knowledge is not mere recognition of science facts.
Agreed. But the test was about comparing the two surveys—the more you know about science the more likely you know that HCl turns litmus paper red (no guarantees). Whether or not you know HCl is salt and that salinity is acidic, and acids turn litmus paper red (now I do ... again) is a different matter.
Remember, the question these different little tests were used for is whether knowing science protects your mind from buying into nonsense, so more important than whether you know 13 answers in the knowledge survey (but not that litmus paper turns red when exposed to salt) is that if you got 12 right you aren’t significantly more likely to be a good skeptic/critical thinker. I’d like to see a third data set here on whether respondents understood the questions and their answers rather than just knowing the answers (or not), and how that relates to skepticism/critical thinking.
Also, who the hell knows the answer to this question? My guess, is very few people who do not have medical degrees.
Which of the following situations might cause harm to an embryo? (A) The father is RH-positive; the mother, RH-negative, (B) The mother had German measles during the first trimester of pregnancy, (C) The father is RH-negative; the mother, RH-positive, (D) A and B only, (E) B and C only.
EDIT: After reading more about the problem in question, I suppose people that have children or women who want to become pregnant might know more about this particular problem than myself who is a 30ish white dude with no kids.
Well, it’s kinda like the measurement question—genetics vs. illness vs. systemic compromise issues ... though to understate the matter a touch I’m not at all as solid on biology, which I’ve likely just demonstrated quite clearly to those who are (by, I expect, using less than appropriate terms and a rather vague attempt at an explanation there). As I said I got it wrong too, but I’m also well aware of why (i.e. just as I’m keenly aware that I probably just told anyone who knows biology very well at all that I don’t). Basically, if we had any real clue at all about the biology involved and read it with reasonable care, we shouldn’t have gotten it wrong.