I agree, the one "fact" that this guy points out would be better decribed as "a damn near baseless conclussion."
Unless, of course, you count the writer's obvious bias as a basis for that conclussion, that is.
Plus, read some of the other "articles" on that page. If they aren't pure drivel, they are pure drivel with a bias against the american public in general.
Or they read like they were written by an 12 year-old with tourettes.
Plus, unless that poll was only a sample of people from Arkansas, I don't know many people as stupid as he makes americans out to be, unless they are REALLY old, in which case, they have an excuse: they are old.
Plus, unless that poll was only a sample of people from Arkansas, I don't know many people as stupid as he makes americans out to be, unless they are REALLY old, in which case, they have an excuse: they are old.
I don't think there is any excuse to being ignorant to something a first grader knows...
For most of the twentieth century, the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease was reserved for individuals between the ages of 45-65 who developed symptoms of presenile dementia due to the histopathologic process discovered by Dr. Alzheimer (see below for description of brain tissue changes). During this time senile dementia itself (as a set of symptoms) was considered to be a more or less normal outcome of the aging process, and thought to be due to age-related brain arterial "hardening." In the 1970s and early-1980s, because the symptoms and brain pathology were identical for Alzheimer victims older and younger than age 65, the name "Alzheimer's disease" began to be used, within and outside the medical profession, equally for afflicted individuals of all ages, although in this period the term senile dementia of the Alzheimer type (SDAT) was often used to distinguish those over 65 who did not fit the classical age criterion. Eventually, the term Alzheimer's disease was adopted formally in the psychiatric and neurological nomenclature to describe individuals of all ages with the characteristic common symptom pattern, disease course, and neuropathology.
Alzheimer's doesn't just apply to old people. You lose.
In my experience, there are a lot of old people that are stubborn, and don't want, or need, to keep up with anything that is new; it just isn't a necessity in their lives. If new knowledge comes about, and has no visible impact on your well being, or your ability to live until tomorrow, and it doesn't interest you, then you tend to not give two shits. My girlfriend, Shay, watches that damend E channel all the damn time, and I hate it, because to me, Paris Hilton, or p-diddy, or k-fed, or any of those people, not a damn one of them has any impact on my life. If someone is a farmer, and they are a simple person, what need do they have for scientific knowledge that doesn't directly relate to their corn crop not growing as it should because of a drought this year. What does a plumber need to know about radiation. I'm not saying people shouldn't learn, but when you are old, you don't really NEED the latest information about the sciences. If you are old and want to learn new stuff, good for you, but that is just how people are.
Ever hear the saying about an old dog and new tricks?
I'm not saying people shouln't learn, but when you are old, you don't really NEED the latest information about the sciences. If you are old and want them, good for you, but that is just how people are.
Because Heliocentrism is the forefront of modern science.
And I didn't say that. I personally don't know ANYONE, including the old, AND the white-trash, that believe that the sun revolves around the earth. And I live in Alabama. And our public schools are ranked 49th in the nation. So ANYWHERE that anyone would learn this shit, God alone knows what kind of shit is being taught there. I went to a church school, here in Alabama, for 2 years, and even they taught proper astronimcal relationships (moons around planets, planets around stars, stars revolving within a galaxy, etc).
Also, let us not forget how easy it is to schew a poll. And, there's no hard poll data presented in the article. What was the sample? How was the sample found? Did the poll taker find a bunch of crazy people and poll them once for every four other Americans polled?
From what I've been reading, everyone here seems to be more of a Jack of All Trades sorta person and therefore loves absorbing large quantities of knowledge (and typically also the caffeine to go along with it) so we may not be a typical sample of the population. That being said, adding my own anecdotal evidence, no one I know of thinks the sun revolves around the earth. and from what I've gathered they would be what i would guess to be closer to a valid sample.
Comments
Unless, of course, you count the writer's obvious bias as a basis for that conclussion, that is.
Plus, read some of the other "articles" on that page. If they aren't pure drivel, they are pure drivel with a bias against the american public in general.
Or they read like they were written by an 12 year-old with tourettes.
Plus, unless that poll was only a sample of people from Arkansas, I don't know many people as stupid as he makes americans out to be, unless they are REALLY old, in which case, they have an excuse: they are old.
Ever hear the saying about an old dog and new tricks?
Also, let us not forget how easy it is to schew a poll. And, there's no hard poll data presented in the article. What was the sample? How was the sample found? Did the poll taker find a bunch of crazy people and poll them once for every four other Americans polled?
AAAAAAAAARRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!
AARRRRRAAAARRRRAAAAAGGGGGGAAAARRRGGGHHHHHH!