I would argue the latter is a good way to learn the former
Comment on Cause and Effect
LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 1 day ago
I feel like media literacy is more useful for preventing this crap than a scientific education would be, though both help to some degree.
wander1236@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Droggelbecher@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Yep, maths and science are only partially about learning maths and science. The even more important purpose is learning critical reasoning skills, which is a requirement for media literacy.
rockerface@lemmy.cafe 1 day ago
Exactly, it’s not about memorising formulas and facts, but about developing problem solving skills
Zerush@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
When I was studying, I had a problem with a question in class and I asked the teacher and he, instead of giving me an answer or a tip, told me “Naturally I can explain it to you, also a second and third time, but soon you will forget it, first try better to find the solution by yourself, if you succeed you will have understood it and you will never forget it for the rest of your life”. It was a very good advice until now, almost 60 years after it. The need of help from others is always good, but only as last resource.
tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
I’d say critical thinking is divorced from any one subject. You can learn it in a humanities context just as easily as a scientific one.
Sc00ter@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
This is something i noticed early on with the generational divide and misinformation on the internet. Older generations never had the internet in school, and this were never taught how to identify a truthful source. Those of us that grew up with the internet were drilled into our heads, “not everything on the internet is true.” From both our teachers and the generation who believes everything on the internet.
It was a big sticking point with my in-laws during covid. Theyd send me a link, and 5 minutes later id respond with, “that person never went to any college has no credentials to be commenting on the scientific and biological effects of vaccines. Here’s a published dr saying youre wrong.” Only to be met with, “you’re an idiot. Go get autism if you want.”
brucethemoose@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I think the flip side of this is Facebook or wherever the link was pushed to them (which is what I’d guess happened) feels… empowering. Those apps are literally optimized, with billions of dollars (and extensive science, especially psychology), to validate folk’s views in the pursuit of keeping them clicking.
shawn1122@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Absolutely agree. The “internet” was not a harmful worldview reinforcing machine back when we were told not to cite GeoCities in our book reports.
Asking people to betray their dopamine is a monumental task. It’s like any other addiction.
Taalnazi@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Best way to change that is to shut down algorithms that have that bias, and mandate media literacy.
brucethemoose@lemmy.world 1 day ago
That doesn’t work because people like the algorithms, unfortunately. They win the attention war, and Trump is perfectly emblematic of this.
Soleos@lemmy.world 1 day ago
It’s not a new thing. The same issues were the case for television, radio, and newspapers. They had to teach media literacy before the internet too. You go back into the archives and you’ll see some wild misinformation that’s very reminiscent of what we see on the internet. We did have a brief few decades where we had a more consistent and adhered to set of standards, but these were by no means universal. The perception of reliable information is also skewed the combination of being less aware of misinformation when younger and by a unique period where mass reputable media were all saying the same thing… But that also meant they were leaving the same things out.
But the internet did change things. Standards have been blown up, misinformation is much faster and the volume of it is much higher. Our brains couldn’t keep up with 24hr news channels, let alone the cesspools of social media we have now.
DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
I’ll provide a non-western perspective on this:
My mother was born in mainland China, according to her, doctors were corrupt and would prescribe unnecessary medications or perform unnecessary medical procedures because the doctors were incentivised and get more money by doing so.
That’s why now in the US, he maintains the same beliefs, reluctant to let me get antidepressant medication, because she see the as “crutches”, unnecessary “happy pills” for “weak” people, “too many side effects”, “harmful for health”, “these doctors probably don’t know anything”, “it’s all in your head”.
It goes far as: “try this necklace that repels evil”, wtf lol.
Also: Fucking Wechat and the fucking “herbal medicine”/TCM or whatever🤦♂️
UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 12 hours ago
The profit motive haunts me as well. regardless of what service or product im buying. Living on planet earth was not a good call.
Zyansheep@programming.dev 1 day ago
Specifically epistemology and concrete notions of degrees of truth and how truth is approximated by science.
primrosepathspeedrun@anarchist.nexus 1 day ago
Let’s not let this be a humanities vs stem argument.
You need some of both for a well rounded adult–from academic sources or otherwise.
Zerush@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
It is clear, you need some bases to be able to reasonice and understand the cause of an problem. You can find the cause of an problem why an engine don’t work with some basic knowledge about physics, but even an intelligent aborigen who has no knowledge about mecanics and physic never can, also not a person which only had memorized data without understandig it, can’t But the current education system priorice the latter, because of this there are a lot of integral idiots with graduation, which outside of their routine don’t understand anything.
bobs_monkey@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
Sure, but a fundamental understanding of the basics, across all disciplines (science , history, literature, and math) helps one spot bullshit from a mile away.
Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
IMHO, understanding the Scientific Method and, maybe more importantly, why it is as it is (so, understanding things like Confirmation Bias, including that we ourselves have it without noticing it, which skews our perception, recollection and conclusions as well as Logical Falacies) is what makes the most difference in how we mentally handle data, information and even offered knowledge from the outside.
Even subtle but common Propaganda techniques used in the modern age are a lot more obvious once one is aware of one’s one natural biases and how these techniques act on and via those biases, purposefully avoiding logic.
Personally I feel that that’s the part of my training in Science (which I never finished, since I changed the degree I was taking from Physics to EE half way) is what makes me a bit more robust (though not immune: none of us are, IMHO) to Propaganda.
InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world 6 hours ago
I find a historical approach is useful to highlight this.
shawn1122@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Science is powerful but, as you’ve stated, balance is most critical. It was one of the most impactful biologists of the modern era that wrote “the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races” based on his theory of natural selection.