Skip to main content

What people believe about science

Apologies if posts are a little off and on until after Easter - it's school holiday time again!

There's a rather interesting piece about scientific beliefs on Derren Brown's blog. Apparently over a fifth of the population believe that light sabres exist, more than 40% believe in Back to the Future style hover boards and most mind-boggling of all, 18% of adults believe they can see gravity. (I think this must surely have been them misreading the questionnaire and thinking it was asking them if they could see gravy. I can see gravy.)

But what I found most interesting of all was how much Derren Brown's post got wrong - so it's not just the British population that has misconceptions about science. For example, Brown's post crows that 30% of Britains believe that time travel is possible. Ho, ho, silly people! They've been watching too much Dr Who! Unfortunately, Derren, time travel is possible. Thanks to relativity, for example, every time we move or experience a gravitational field, we travel through time compared with people who aren't moving or feeling that field. This is why GPS satellites have to be corrected for relativity - because they are travelling in time with respect to the surface of the Earth. Not a lot, admittedly, but time travelling they are. (As Yoda might put it.)

He also listed some of the things the poor deluded public thought weren't possible, but really were. For example, Harry Potter style invisibility cloaks. He notes quite rightly that there are techniques that can make small things disappear - but they don't work well with visible light, and only with very small things. Yes, one day, some variant of this technology may be used to build some form of invisibility device (I can't imagine it would ever literally be a cloak), but we're a long way off. The public is right - they don't exist today.

Even better is his assertion that 'Seven out of ten adults questioned thought it was impossible to move objects with their mind.' Well, yes Derren, all the evidence is that telekinesis is bunk. What he then uses to disprove this is that there are devices that enable people to control things by monitoring brain activity and interpreting it. Yes, this is perfectly true. But then this is exactly what happens when you pick something up with your hand. Activity in your brain is detected and that causes muscles to act. But no one would think that picking something up with their hand is 'moving objects with their mind.' You know, and I know, and Derren knows that people are thinking of direct mental action on solid objects - for which there is no evidence.

So full marks to Derren for pointing out the odd beliefs - but minus marks for trying to manipulate the evidence to show something it doesn't.

Image from Wikipedia

Comments

  1. When I come across a blog post that reminds me of Hugh Laurie, it is a lovely day indeed.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUxWdIQVT_c

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope