Science: Perception trumps fact?

English novelist Aldous Huxley, creator of that dubious utopia in "Brave New World," said there are things known and things unknown. In between are the doors of perception.

Even long-established science is susceptible to belief, or so it would seem.

"Does the Earth go around the sun, or does the sun go around the Earth?"

Obvious, you say? Not to roughly one-quarter of Americans who incorrectly answered the most recent biannual science literacy survey conducted by the National Science Foundation. Public attitudes and beliefs are part of this broad review of the state of science and engineering in the U.S.

Copernicus would be mortified, if he weren't already dead, but it gets worse. Nearly half of respondents in the 2014 survey believe atoms are smaller than the electrons which help comprise them.

Is this a sad statement about our collective knowledge? Perhaps in part, but it might also reveal more about our desire to believe, to see things according to personal philosophies, than it does a lack of attention in school. Consider the wording of questions about how the "universe" (well, our little part of it anyway) and human civilization began. Asked two ways, the results were different - not only in the U.S. but in Europe, too.

To "human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals," 48 percent responded "true."

But when they added a preface:

"According to the theory of evolution, human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals," 72 percent said, "true."

Same deal for the big bang:

"The universe began with a huge explosion," was believed true by only 38 percent of respondents, but when the preface "according to astronomers" was added, agreement jumped to 60 percent.

We're also more inclined than we were two years ago to believe in the stars. Not in astronomy, the science of heavenly bodies, but in astrology - their ability to predict our lives. Only half of Americans said they agree that astrology is "not at all scientific." Two years ago, two-thirds agreed.

Yet a majority of Americans continue to say they generally support the cause of science (and 60 percent say government should fund it at current levels), are worried about the quality of the environment, and respect scientists and engineers, whom they see as "dedicated people working for the good of humanity." On all these issues, responses were largely the same as they were two years ago.

Considering the high passions surrounding certain issues, there were a few slight surprises. Six in 10 Americans see using stem cells from human embryos as acceptable; this rate has stayed relatively stable since 2005. Regarding climate change and global warming, more Americans than before are concerned and believe it is rightly becoming a higher priority, although we are still less concerned than are other countries about environmental issues overall.

Only about half of Americans see the social science fields of economics and sociology as "scientific." More Americans see computer programming, farming, and firefighting as scientific.

And where do we get our scientific "knowledge," according to the NSF surveys? Generally, among more educated Americans, from written materials such as periodicals and books. The less education, the more reliance on TV and Internet: Four in 10 Americans say they get most of their scientific knowledge from the Internet, which has now surpassed other sources as primary. That's alarming, considering how unreliable, untested, and biased much of what's on the Web is.

But not all of it. For more, and more reliable, information on the survey and other scientific discoveries, see NSF.gov.

Sholeh Patrick, J.D. is a columnist for the Hagadone News Network. Contact her at [email protected].