Search News


Browse Archives

News

American Ignorance

February 24, 2006

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

It’s not just intelligent design that scientists need to worry about -- it’s witches.

K-12 science achievement has stagnated, according to the National Science Board’s "Science and Engineering Indicators, 2006" report, issued Thursday. Witches, however, staged a big comeback in the '90s before slipping a few notches.

According to a section of the report on pseudoscience, only around 14 percent of Americans believed in witches in 1990, according to a Gallup poll. Witches rallied for a decade, convincing over a quarter of Americans of their existence by 2001, before about 4 percent of those reneged, putting the believers at just over 20 percent in 2005.

Jo Ann Vasquez, a National Science Board member and the lead author of the report, said that science teachers are in need of professional development to combat misinformation. According to the report, as of 2002, nearly one-fourth of science teachers and one-fifth of math teachers did not have certification in the field they were teaching. “A lot of junior high teachers still think that the Earth tilts back and forth to create the seasons,” said Vasquez, a former curriculum developer for Mesa Public Schools in Arizona.

Of course, witches in tough economic times, like teachers, still need a roof over their heads. About 29 percent of Americans believed in haunted houses in 1990. Perhaps bolstered by a strong real estate market, Americans figured more ghosts would invest, and, by 2001, 42 percent of Americans believed in haunted houses. As witches moved out of American minds, they may have moved out of their houses too. The percentage of haunted house believers dropped to 38 in 2005.

Nearly all of the paranormal beliefs surveyed -- from ghosts to communing-with-the-dead -- followed the same pattern: lower in 1990; peaking in 2001, and falling back a bit in 2005, while still above the 1990 level. Reincarnation, however, is no longer in vogue, and the future is a bit cloudy for extrasensory perception. Fewer Americans believe in those two paranormal phenomena than in 1990. Still, 41 percent of Americans believe in ESP, and 20 percent in reincarnation. Telepathic messages sent to dead people seeking comment were not returned.

People communing with Darwin might want to translate the depressing news that only about 42 percent of Americans said that the statement, “human beings are developed from earlier species of animals,” is true. That percentage tied for lowest with those in Russia among seven regions represented – China, European Union, Japan, Malaysia, Russia, South Korea, U.S. – represented in the report. Additionally, only about 35 percent of Americans said the “universe began with a huge explosion,” tied for second lowest with Russia, and nearly double China. In most of the scientific literacy questions, Americans did well compared to the other countries, taking home the gold in knowing that antibiotics don’t kill viruses -- over 50 percent knew – and in answering that not all “radioactivity is man-made,” -- over 70 percent.

While well educated men who live near the coasts were most likely to say that Darwin’s theory of evolution has been well supported by evidence, a survey released this year of 439 college students in Texas and Oklahoma should chill the hearts of academics. Bryan Farha, a professor of education at Oklahoma City University, and Gary Steward, associate dean of the College of Liberal arts at the University of Central Oklahoma, found that the students surveyed with more education -- 23 percent of freshmen, compared to 31 percent of seniors and 34 percent of graduate students -- were more likely to believe in paranormal phenomena.

"As people attain higher college-education levels, the likelihood of believing in paranormal dimensions increases," Farha and Steward wrote in the January-February issue of the Skeptical Inquirer magazine. Still, college students were less likely than the general public in nearly all of the 13 categories to say they believe in various paranormal phenomena. Those pesky witches, however, captivated 26 percent of the college students surveyed, identical to the general public.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Comments on American Ignorance

  • paranormal beliefs
  • Posted by Christine Hamm on February 24, 2006 at 7:40am EST
  • Reincarnation is one of the tenants of Buddhism. It’s interesting how the underlying assumption is that there are legitimate religious beliefs -- believing in Jesus is not named as a “paranormal belief”-- and illegitimate beliefs. I suppose Wiccans (many of whom call themselves witches, and so must “believe” in witches) fall in the category of paranormal believers, whereas Catholics do not.

  • Posted by Dr. Angus on February 24, 2006 at 8:45am EST
  • I'm not sure "ignorance" is they way to describe some of these beliefs.

    For example, if asked, I would say that I believe there are witches. But I do not believe in paranormal powers. There are thousands of people around the country that call themselves witches and believe they can cast spells.

  • What's your argument?
  • Posted by Mr. Huntly on February 24, 2006 at 9:00am EST
  • I'm not sure what the author here is getting at since, as I frequently have to chastise my students, "there is no thesis." There's just a sarcastic reporting of statistics which, we're to assume, implies a stance towards those facts. But is he suggesting that belief in the paranormal is antithetical to a belief in hard science? Is there some causal correlation between a belief in witches (which, as one poster points out, isn't a matter of speculation but a recognition of an actual religion), and a decreasing understanding of evolution or natural science(to my knowledge, most Wiccans accept evolution, and are staunch environmentalists)? Is any sort of religion, spirituality, or imaginative speculation incompatible with science, reason, and fact? The author simply dismisses such beliefs as "ignorance" without the benefit of any analysis or reasoning.

    I am an agnostic, a liberal, and a skeptic--but I fail to see where this author's snide attitude and dismissive sarcasm contributes to the general enlightenment of the "ignorant" masses. Rather, it's just provocation for provocation's sake--another ignorant gesture in the ongoing (and disingenuous)polarization of science and religion.

  • Intellectual Arrogance
  • Posted by B. Stuart on February 24, 2006 at 11:00am EST
  • Epstein writes with the all-too-common arrogance of those who casually dismiss evolution critics out-of-hand. Certainly, there are intelligent design proponents who are guilty of the same. But it is disingenuous to link evolution critics with those who believe in the paranormal. Both evolutionists and supporters of intelligent design bring faith-based presuppositions to their arguments, and THAT is where fair criticism can take place.

    Proponents of evolution assume that “something” can emerge from nothing. Supporters of intelligent design hold that something must come from something, particularly when the effects, those being life and natural processes, exhibit both complexity and pattern. Creationists take this a step further and assume that something must, and did, come from someone (i.e. a being that exhibits certain characteristics of personhood).

    All of these perspectives require a certain measure of faith in fundamental presuppositions, and there are those who have applied rigorous science to the matter and still hold different views. My point is that it’s fine to debate the foundational assumptions that lead to belief or lack of belief in evolution. But casual criticism of any view - without acknowledging underlying assumptions - is sloppy simplification of the issue.

    In this case, the author’s effort to create a straw man, in the form of “scary” surveys demonstrating American ignorance, is transparent.

  • Witches
  • Posted by Larry on February 24, 2006 at 11:00am EST
  • Good point. My cat sitter is a witch. Does this mean nobody fed them during my last trips, since, as an intellectual I can’t believe in them? Maybe she used her paranormal powers to make them gain weight.

  • The Supernatural
  • Posted by J. Madison Davis on February 24, 2006 at 11:00am EST
  • Except as a subject for psychological study, the supernatural is irrelevant to science; otherwise we wouldn't have television shows promoting ignorance by having "scientists" examining haunted houses and desperately trying to establish a connection between science and superstition. Discovery TV does this disservice almost every night of the week. Until the transmigration of souls can be scientifically verified, there is little reason not to call it and things like it, "superstition."

    On another note, it's certainly possible to believe, as Thomas Jefferson did, in the value of Jesus (or the Buddha, for that matter) without buying into the supernatural things that are associated with him.

  • Interesting figures
  • Posted by Bad English on February 24, 2006 at 11:10am EST
  • I think the author is simply looking to draw attention to some enormously interesting figures. Given the recent NAAL (adult literacy assessment), it would be interesting to see how these trends correlate (if at all).

  • Posted by BA on February 24, 2006 at 11:25am EST
  • Once again, we see hard scientists acting as though they have anything meaningful to say about unprovable theories.

    This is exactly the same as religious folks trying to impose spiritual laws and proofs upon science.

    It's useless for both camps, because nothing will ever be proven to the satisfaction of the opposing faction.

    It's also seriously annoying to the (rather large, I would argue) number of people who are able to reconcile their spirituality or superstition with their knowledge.

    Just because I get goosebumps in a "haunted house" doesn't mean I question proven science. And I resent the implication that I should have to.

  • Posted by R.D. Cartwright on February 24, 2006 at 1:45pm EST
  • Some of this may actually represent more understanding on the part of the students rather than less. As some of these "paranormal" areas have been explored, the definitions have been clarified so the same words are actually asking a different question now than a decade or two ago. For example, as the Wiccan religion has "come out" over the last several years, more people would interpret the question as asking about that than about the Grimm's Fairy Tale version. Do I believe in the Wicked Witch of the West on her broomstick? No. Do I believe in witches? Of course. I had coffee with one this morning.

  • ImaginationReality
  • Posted by Kiumars Lalezarzadeh, Ph.D. , Minister Psychotherapist at BHITS, NIHARD, Q's Ministry of AIWP on February 26, 2006 at 8:40am EST
  • A period of human development entails imagination, believing in the supernatural. This period follows the time when a child is able to know that out of sight is not out of mind- when something is hidden, that does not mean it does not exist.

    Sometimes, given extreme stress people may revert back to this imagination state. There are many from the content of their imagination into observable objects.

    For example, Extra Sensory Perception can be scientifically tested and observed in real data. This is a field of para-psychology.

    Also I recall a science project (may be it was at Scotland) which used sofisticated physics devices to detect paranormal activity, or may be it was "field energy", cell phone, microwave, radio or TV frequencies they detected!

    The above may have nothing to do with witches or cats at Salom, M.A., however!

  • Incredible
  • Posted by Ken Wagner , Asst. Professor at Radford University on February 26, 2006 at 9:35pm EST
  • It's incredible that we continue to see arguments like this from Mr. Stuart:
    All of these perspectives require a certain measure of faith in fundamental presuppositions, and there are those who have applied rigorous science to the matter and still hold different views.
    First of all, where do evolutionists say something came from nothing? I'm not sure they say that at all. That is what IDer's say they say. In fact they say that the natural universe came from natural components and explanations. Secondly, this is a silly argument: look how all three have faith in something! The crucial difference is science has "faith' in natural explanations and natural components as causes. In fact, so do IDer's and creationists when it comes to 99% of reality. But IDer's and creationists have 'faith' in something that not only has not been demonstrated, but in which numerous tests have failed to verify: the supernatural. Sorry charlie.

  • American materialism
  • Posted by Earl Grey on February 26, 2006 at 9:35pm EST
  • The notion that spiritual, supernatural, or extrasensory phenomena somehow lack "reality" because science hasn't proven (or disproven) them isn't a scientific position--it's a materialist position, and not one that scientists are obliged to take. Science only makes claims about what it can observe, measure, analyze, and reproduce--which, by definition, excludes all of those phenomena. It also excludes my consciousness and imagination--but that doesn't imply that those things don't exist. My "belif" in my own consciousness isn't indicative of "ignorance" or delusion--it's an acceptance (and frequent use) of something that doesn't require physical or naturalistic "proof." The same can be said of various religious, supernatural, or paranormal beliefs. Believing those things doesn't preclude scientific observation, speculation, theorizing, or experimenting--so why should the reverse be true? It's like saying that there can't be apples in the refrigerator because there are oranges there.

    If Mr. Epstein just wanted to share some interesting statistics, he might have spared us the sarcasm and implied eye-rolling, as well as the disparaging title. As it is, he isn't exposing "American ignorance" so much as he's illustrating his own unsophisticated understandings of both science and religion, neither of which can dismiss the other as illegitimate since they don't utilize the same measures or definitions of "reality," evidence, meaning, etc. His attitude is as misguided as that of the ID fanatics who dismiss hard science because it fails to answer their metaphysical questions (as if it should).

  • Posted by Neil , Lord help us on February 27, 2006 at 11:03am EST
  • Compounding the depressing state of scientific literacy of Americans, as evidenced in the article, is that on a site about higher ed, the majority of respondents seem primarily to wish to defend supernatural noise of one form or another. Rather than quibble about the definition of witch (and yes, maybe the survey and/or the article had some weaknesses; it's not clear whether it clarified that 'witch' most likely meant someone who can influence future events by chanting or some other kind of ritual that bypasses normal human communication), it would have been nice for people to address the core issue: despite huge sums invested in creating an educated populace, a shocking proportion of adults buy into a view of reality where projected fantasies promoted by charlatans play a large role, and the significance of scientific truth-seeking is diminished. People love their cars and cell phones, but don't understand that these reliable, predictably behaving gizmos are just a tiny demonstration of how the scientific method (including intuition) claws and scratches and stumbles its way towards something like truth.

  • Irrational fears
  • Posted by Mr. Huntly on February 27, 2006 at 2:10pm EST
  • "the majority of respondents seem primarily to wish to defend supernatural noise of one form or another."

    No--they're not "defending supernatural noise," they're criticizing the lack of scientific thinking in an article supposedly directed at the sad state of scientific literacy. There's nothing objective or analytical about Mr. Epstein's presentation of "the facts." Rather, he indulges in unfounded paranoia about some supposed link between belief in witches and misunderstandings of evolution. Research Methods 101 might help his cause enormously.

    "despite huge sums invested in creating an educated populace, a shocking proportion of adults buy into a view of reality where projected fantasies promoted by charlatans play a large role, and the significance of scientific truth-seeking is diminished."

    You, of course, illustrate the same problem: assuming a correlation between supernatural "beliefs" and scientific illiteracy. One, of course, does not imply the other--as centuries of scientific discovery and simultaneous religious belief would seem to testify. Calling believers "charlatans" doesn't prove your case, or win any converts (so to speak)--it just discredits your own objectivity.

    While there may be fanatics on both ends of the spectrum who feel that their opposition should be "wiped from the map" in order to insure their own survival, the sane among us have never subscribed to that "irrational belief." There is no mutual exclusivity in either science or religion, though we often see it in politics....

  • Fashionable nonsense
  • Posted by LogicGuru on February 28, 2006 at 5:20pm EST
  • What always bugged me was that (in my experience) the people who were most credulous about claims of the paranormal, quack medicine, bogus therapies and the like were usually the most contemptuous of Christianity. There are very few good, tough-minded empiricists of the Skeptical Inquirer kind around, who dismiss religious belief along with ESP, dowsing, astrology, chiropractic, etc. as all of a piece. I have no problem with them. It's the majority of the cultured despisers, the soft-headed, who dismiss religious belief because it's unfashionable and declasse but buy into all manner of fashionable nonsense that get my goat.

    As far as scientific literacy goes I'd bet that what you gain on the swings you lose on the roundabouts. I'd bet that individuals who reject evolution are less likely to believe in fashionable nonsense while those who buy evolution are more likely to believe in New Age trash so that the level of credulousness across the population remains constant.

  • correlation betw supernatural “beliefs” and sci illiteracy
  • Posted by Neil on March 1, 2006 at 5:40am EST
  • Mr. Huntly, I believe there has been a profound transformation in the nature of religious and superstitious belief among the scientifically literate since the scientific enterprise got underway in earnest a few centuries ago. To cut to the chase, it has roughly changed from:

    "I believe all those miracles in the bible really happenned, from the 6 day creation to the resurrection and everything in between; I will be punished or miss out on paradise if I don't accept him fully; God is up there watching me, and if we pray hard enough, our nation (football team) will be victorious; further, I believe all of this in the same *way* that I believe that rain helps crops grow"

    to

    "The existence of a god, and the validity of the biblical stories can't be proven one way or another, so, no point fussing; this belief system was good enough for my ancestors over many generations, and it provided them comfort and moral guidance as it has for me, so I will pass it onto the kids; I also recognize that if I deviate publicly from acceptance of this belief system, I will risk damaging important social relationships"

    Belief has been transformed from something literal, vital, and absolute into something metaphorical, casual, even consumer-centric; most folks at the Vatican and at Lubavitcher seminaries would probably agree with this assessment, even if they interpret how good or bad it is differently from I.

    The people who adhere to the earlier style of belief tend to be less scientifically literate. Of course, one can find exceptions, but I'm convinced this is the trend.

    As for objectivity, don't we all like to think we *started out* objective? After decades of observation, we draw conclusions.

    LogicGuru, I suspect that those who believe in what you call fashionable nonsense aren't interested much in evolution at all, and that they also tend towards the earlier *style* of belief, even if they have switched the content of the things believed. (And aren't you being a bit hard on chiropractic? This is a just rhetorical; I certainly don't want to argue about it!)