Common Misconceptions About Science

[Darth Wong]

The amount of energy in the universe is not in fact constant.

Matter is just a form of energy, so yes, it is constant.

In any useful sense of the word, energy is not constant in the universe.

Actually, most astrophysicists tend to refer to mass/energy as a conjoined term because there is so much exchange from one form to another in larger-scale universal processes.

[Howedar]

Yes, that's true. I don't think like an astrophysicist, though. However if I build a nuclear weapon, I'm not likely to think in that manner.

I guess more to the point, even in physics textbooks I don't think I've ever seen the word "energy" used to refer to mass-energy. If that meaning is intended, I've always seen it explicitly referred to as "mass-energy". If I'm asked whether energy is constant, then I'm going to assume the reference is to energy in the useful sense.

[Darth Wong]

Yes, that's true. I don't think like an astrophysicist, though. However if I build a nuclear weapon, I'm not likely to think in that manner.

I guess more to the point, even in physics textbooks I don't think I've ever seen the word "energy" used to refer to mass-energy. If that meaning is intended, I've always seen it explicitly referred to as "mass-energy". If I'm asked whether energy is constant, then I'm going to assume the reference is to energy in the useful sense.

In that case, it's even less constant than you suggested, since useful ordered energy is constantly being lost to entropy.

[Pick]

When he said "in the useful sense", I believe he meant "in the manner by which the word 'energy' is usefully/commonly applied".

[Academia Nut]

Welll, thing is that in the realms where mass-energy is most noticeable, namely the subatomic area, scientists often use MeV/c^2 as a measure of mass because it is so bloody convient in comparison to kg both in terms of scale and because you just have to cancel a few symbols instead of having to do a kg->J conversion. Plus in the unitless Planck system, E=m, so as far as the universe is concerned, and thus as far as science is concerned, energy and matter are merely different forms of the same phenomenon in much the same way there is kinetic energy and potential energy. The spontaneous generation of particle-antiparticle pairs from high energy photons demonstrates this fact most explicitly.

[Kuroneko]

It doesn't have to be the Planck system for E = m. Any system of units with c = 1 will do; this is very common in any relativistic context. It's also possible to bring mass-energy under the umbrella of momentum, in that energy is the momentum in the time direction. The only caveat is that "constant" typically implies "some fixed amount", which might not be meaningful for the universe; "neither created nor destroyed" is more wordy but also more correct.

When he said "in the useful sense", I believe he meant "in the manner by which the word 'energy' is usefully/commonly applied".

Then his reasoning would still be off, as changes of thermal energy via nuclear fusion involve a corresponding change in nuclear potential energy. It seems strange to bring up nuclear physics more than once but to ignore the usage of the term in that domain.

[Nova Andromeda]

Hello,

Thank you for your constructive criticism on the Science Beliefs Quiz. The quiz is now disabled and will be revised to reflect the comments and insights that you have provided and through responses such as forum discussions and the explanations provided by respondents.

Many do not understand that the quiz was initially developed for preservice elementary teachers (in United States where I teach)for the purpose of helping them think about some basic science concepts. Many of my students (preservice elementary teachers) have taken very few, if any, science courses at the university level. Many of these same students also opted out of taking science course work in their junior and senior years in high school. Therefore, they have not thought about some basic science ideas for quite some time (if ever). The focus through the items and explanations was in this context. I am not writing this to excuse any inaccuracies, as it is clear that improvement can be made, instead it is to describe why very basic understandings are often the focus of various explanations provided to respondents at the end of the quiz.

The other important factor that must be more clearly explained to quiz-takers and others is that we care more about the "explanations" provided by respondents than their true or false answers because we are well aware that there are "correct" explanations for "incorrect" true or false answers. In my courses, I carefully explain that the "score" may not accurately reflect understanding because the written explanation tells much more about the thoughts of the individual. I have found that for most items there are explanations and interpretations that make make the "incorrect" true or false response "correct". Unfortunately, the computer program simply provides the "true/false" score and it is up to the individual to determine whether s/he understood the concept. In our analysis of the written explanations (again, mostly preservice teachers until recently), we have found that many explanations include misconceptions and a lack of some very basic understandings. However, a g
reat number of respondents with extremely strong science backgrounds have recently found the quiz online and though these written explanations have not been analyzed yet, they appear to demonstrate "correct" written explanations even when the true or false response "appears" to be incorrect.

Again, thank you for taking the time to e-mail your response. These types of responses will improve the revised quiz and my own practice.

Sincerely,

Mary Stein

-This is the response I got to my e-mail. I didn't see it posted here so I thought it might be useful. I didn't mention Mr. Wong's point that this study doesn't address the fundamental lack of understanding of scientific reasonsing (since I really had no good idea what the goal of the study was at that time and didn't think of that point). I also don't know what forum he's referring to.

[Darth Wong]

It's pretty sad that you can opt out of science in high-school and you can still become a teacher, at any level.

[Nova Andromeda]

-The problems with education are largely a symptom of much bigger problems in the US such as rejection of logical thought in general. I get the feeling these days that trying to fix the education system is at best a holding action. It seems like rational folk should focus on using their time and energy on figuring out how to fix those problems instead of pussy footing around with unorganized half measures. Even if studies like this show how uneducated teachers are they won't tell us anything we don't already know and the major barrier to fixing those things is the uneducated masses in any event.

[SCRawl]

Well, that explains why I can't find the quiz now. I don't suppose anyone has a copy I can look at....

[Ariphaos]

It's pretty sad that you can opt out of science in high-school and you can still become a teacher, at any level.

I was floored when I found out that Minnesota's requirement for teachers to hold a degree in the field they teach was 'unusual', to the point were a friend of mine on the East coast (Virginia, I think) was griping about how his high-school senior Math teacher did not know calculus, and that several of his classmates - graduating - could not read.

[Son of the Suns]

"Sexually produced offspring can be identical to either of their parents."
they - false
me - true - how about hermaphrodite self-fertilization?

False, you are thinking of asexual reproduction I believe.

I was really looking forward to taking the quiz after reading some of the posts, I think I'd do really well on it , but mostly because I teach and tutor freshman chemistry, biology, and physics classes. It seems like alot of these questions could be taken right out of some of those books' questions.

Some of the questions don't make much sense I think, such as the chicago one. It seems that would require some very specific knowledge. Of course, I haven't ever taken a geology class of any kind, so it may be that a basic tenet of geology is that over enough time any place on earth can experience an earthquake of some degree, so they would expect that if you had that basic course you'd get the question right.

[Son of the Suns]

24 - Most things in our universe tend to become more organized and more orderly over time.
Been a while since i did physics and chemistry so i messed this up.

Probably b/c you read so many threads here about evolution . Here they are probably looking to see if you've learned the laws of thermodynamics. What most people learn is that the 2nd law is that things tend to become more disorganized over time.

The amount of energy in the universe is not in fact constant. Nuclear fusion, FFS.

Although you might see a program on Discovery every once and awhile about theories saying that it isn't, the working understanding of the universe is that the amount of energy in it is constant, and that energy is conserved throughout any process. Nuclear fusion does not create energy anymore than sticking a battery in a flashlight creates energy, you are simply observing it taking a different form.

Like the question 2000 was looking at, they asked this one to see if you remembered the first law of thermodynamics, or at least the layman's version of it.

[Ender]

The amount of energy in the universe is not in fact constant. Nuclear fusion, FFS.

Further, nutrients in soil are indeed necessary, which I wrote in the explanation.

They claim I got 42/47. They are wrong.

What an astonishing number of poorly posed questions.

Dude, 1st law of thermodynamics: The increase in the internal energy of a thermodynamic system is equal to the amount of heat energy added to the system minus the work done by the system on the surroundings. Conservation of energy man. That heat and kinetic energy from fusion comes from the nuclear potential energy. Energy can neither be created or destroyed, only change in form.

[Kristoff]

"Sexually produced offspring can be identical to either of their parents."
they - false
me - true - how about hermaphrodite self-fertilization?

False, you are thinking of asexual reproduction I believe.

Hermaphrodide self-fertilization is sometimes considered as asexual reproduction, a kind of parthenogenesis, but hermaphrodite has both male and female sex organs, you have sperm and ova, fertilization - for me that's definetly sexual reproduction. In any case, offspring can be identical if we are dealing with total homozygous parents.

[The Original Nex]

I'm getting:

There are no active quizzes; please try again later.

Comments? Questions? Contact the administrators

[General Zod]

I'm getting:

There are no active quizzes; please try again later.

Comments? Questions? Contact the administrators

Read the whole thread next time.