He was both. I love me some Steve hating, but the man was an incredible force and changed a lot about the world of technology. for better and for worse
Einstein wasn't a nerd he was a fukin genius. The scientist promoting gmo and other fucked up shyt are nerds trying to get back at society for their fucked up childhoods
As someone who reads a lot...people brag about not reading _all the time_. The number of people who've been found it weird that I like to read and proudly told me they've never read a book in their lives (outside of school) is astounding.
yeah I totally agree. As a teenager I don't know if its always been like this, but there are just so many people who brag about how they don't read. And its not even just in academically behind people (unlike maths, I find that people who have high level of education tend to recognise maths as an important skill) but those who are perfectly doing well in school does it too.
Why do all of these people glorify Steve Jobs when it comes to technology?? Whenever someone needs a example on anything computer/technology based, it's always him. He was a CEO. Not a inventor, engineer or anything else that involves STEM. If you want influential people in the computer science field who actually engineered or invented something, go beyond the damn marketing guys. If you absolutely need to use a Apple example say Steve Wozniak for heavens sake. You could literally use 100's of examples ranging from Charles Babbage, Alan Turing or Bjarne Stroustrup... If you absolutely have to use a corporate tycoon than say Bill Gates, it least he actually created/engineered a product.
+Raylet2 (I do not use a single Apple product). Steve Jobs helped bridge the gap between the tech and human. It was his guidance and leadership that helped highly educated (and not) people from many backgrounds use retail tech in a way that fitted the people and not the programmer. That's why they use his face when it comes to tech.
+Caleb knott Einstein didn´t do much? like you have done anything better than him for humanity (or ever will) not even your sons or their´s will do anything compared to what he did. You would prefer your picture instead of his in the presentation?
+Raylet2 As far as I know it's a misconception that Einstein wasn't good at mathematics. I want to leave this with an important name in computer science, Dennis Ritchie.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. If you accept that smoking is bad for you, that does NOT mean you are 'STEM literate'. If you accept without understanding or questioning, then you don't know what you're talking about. To be STEM literate, surely you have to make inquiries and find out the facts. THEN, when you conclude - not accept, conclude - that smoking is harmful, you can claim to be 'STEM literate'. She goes on to apply her definition to people who don't believe in climate change, evolution, vaccinations etc. - her objection isn't that they don't understand - it's that they don't accept. She's not preaching learning, she's preaching compliance. Saying "I don' t understand it but I know people who do." is no different from a preacher claiming that we don't need the gods to speak to us directly, the Oracle had a vision and that should be good enough. EDUCATION in math/science is crucial. Skepticism and inquiry, not just wide acceptance of whatever consensus opinion is. Understanding, not compliance.
WalterLiddy Thank you! I couldn't have said it better myself. She is far from STEM literate, herself; she demonstrated that to me in her presentation in this video, numerous times. You're right when you say that she's preaching compliance. It's unfortunate and frustrating to see this sort of thing even happens.
WalterLiddy While what you say is strictly true, what she is really discussing is people who *deny* science, not those who are skeptical. And they deny because they are not 'STEM literate'. In her definition, STEM literate does *not* mean you have done the research and come to your own conclusions - because in order to do that for virtually every possible subject would be impossible for a single human being to do. You, for example, cannot possibly verify the research and conclusions (theories) in cosmology, physics (all of its branches), anthropology, physiology, biology, computer science, etc., etc,, etc. So, what she is *REALLY* saying is that if you are STEM literate (you have critical thinking skills and a rudimentary understanding of the Scientific Method), you can *presume* that when the majority of those who specialize in a particular scientific discipline agree - that they are most likely correct, and you should probably listen to them. She is *not* saying 'blind acceptance'. In fact, considering that there is likely much more money to be gained (through grants, awards and talks) for someone who is able to *disprove* an existing widely accepted theory, there is great likelihood that at least one individual who has a great deal of knowledge in the field is working very hard to disprove at least one or more of the accepted theories. After all, this is precisely why knowledge and technology has advanced so fast over the past few hundred years. Seriously - think about it. Now, I understand what you are trying to say - but the problem is that those who are actually not* STEM literate will almost certainly interpret your 'well said' statement as 'proof' that their denial is actually just 'healthy skepticism' and it is the 98% of climate scientists (for example) who need to work harder to prove their theory.
+WalterLiddy I agree. Though she's preaching 'Science', what comes out of her mouth is anti-science. Science doesn't care what conclusions you come to. Often there are only more questions, but with it comes more understanding, especially in complex systems like the ones she mentioned. There just isn't a simple answer to those questions, so why reduce the science into an agreement with some forced opinions of a majority? She's confusing science with politics. There's plenty of room for individual freedom of thought in science. She's so cute, though, I can't be mad. I like her gumption, just not what she's saying.
ooopaulo I wish I could give you more than 1 TU for the completeness of that post: - she's unscientific... check! - better explanation of the scientific process... check! - acknowledgement that she's cute anyway... check!
I am currently studying advanced maths and physics and completely disagree with her. She believes in global warming, I do not let's think logically. If anyone is going to know global warming is false it's the ones who run NASA, why would they donate money to something which does not exist it's a simple waste of money! Think more openly if I wanted to create something false which many do not understand due to the lack of those in stem fields, all I must do is pay top scientists to fabricate data and "presto".
I really wish there were an international version of this video. I really like how Ms Calandrelli shows how important STEM literacy is, and as a secondary mathematics teacher, it's something I'd really like my students to understand, but it might not do much good showing this particular video to my classes, because I'm a Canadian who works in England, with students who come from all over the world (but only 1 of my 140 students is American). It would be easy for my students to categorise most of these issues as American issues after watching this, even though they're in fact global issues that are presented from an American viewpoint. Too bad. Guess I'll keep looking!
3:43 I hate to disagree, but that doesn't define STEM literate at all. A STEM literate questions the theories, put forward by some people in the name of science, through their own understanding of the matter and statistical analysis. Don't believe in anything unless you definitively check the possible loose ends or question it otherwise, that's what being a STEM literate means.
In any case, context matters. We don't need the general public to be scientists. We need them to understand the basics of what science is, why extensive studies are important, why scientific consensus is a positive thing, what peer review is, why even peer reviewed papers can contradict each other and why the mainstream media are shit at reporting science. They don't need to "question theories". They have neither the training or time to do that effectively. STEM literacy in this context means exactly what she put forward.
0:48 actually in South Africa, a lot of people will proudly tell you that they don't read. This is unfortunate, but it explains a lot about what is happening in parliament...
The other day i saw a meme "Zombies: the only men that will love you for your brain". Now watching Emily Calandrelli i cannot imagine how that is possible. Intelligence is sexy. Period! She is such an inspiration for all and a far better role model for young girls that what we currently have.
That moment where your entire lecture about STEM literacy ignores all the scientists who disagree with her. The problem is not STEM illiteracy, it's politics and censorship. If one paper came out on vaccines and autism against 99 papers that did not connect the two, it would not be dangerous. But when paper after paper denies human-caused climate change and connects vaccines and adverse outcomes but are vilified and taken down by the government, THAT is a problem.
This is so true ! I am 17 years old and can not wait till I start studying at university. I want to study Mathematics and Physics but I am the only one in my entire school who wants to go into STEM field. People want to go into acting and graphic design,not that they can't do what they want. I feel that the products of science and engineering are taken for granted. This is sad :(
Very well done Emily. Being in a STEM company, having a background in Engineering, and a supporter of STEM in education, I applaud how articulate you were in getting your point across. Oh, and I am an Oregon State Alum!
That's really nice of you Ananda! Thank you, it means a lot - especially from someone with your background! And Oregon State is awesome! Loved visiting.
STEM is fine, but bashing the other side of the isle with ignorance isn't. It would be best to understand the other side's argument before you get in front of the world and open your mouth. It's sickening to see how much so many people are instilled with politically-dictated beliefs. She's just showing herself to be a mouthpiece rather than someone who Carl Sagen would describe as having the ability to think scientifically. Disclaimer: *Not a Republican, not a Democrat, not a Third-Party voter*
Great! Ted talks I liked how you engaged the audience looking directly at them the whole time to make the audience feel engaged and interested in your talk.
This is wonderful. Thank you! I will be showing this to my 8th grade science students this week. As a teacher, STEM literacy is something I am deeply committed to. Btw, I have that same Carl Sagan quote on my classroom website.
Just a perfect talk. How amazing you are giving talks! Please start your own you tube channel. You are an excellent educator... Who gives the stage impression you are from the future...
I just love how she barely uses her arms when talking. She appears so calm and relaxed. I'm a twitchy person so I really admire this. Edited: She does do a lot of head bobbing though. It's cute imo
I lost all patience when she used Einstein and Jobs in context of theoretic excellency, but I forced myself keep watching motivated by imagine I was fing her face. I help out with her stupidity until she poited out how many republicans denying significant man made rise in temperature, but she "forgot" the decency to explain by the fact this is the only way to fight climate hysteria. It is not politically possible (it will be later) to fight Status Quo religion, thus you have to deny significant man made rise in temperature to stop leakage of tax money into green nonsense. Some decades from now when this knew religion is no longer popular people will see how great five degrees rise of temperature is. Specially in context of the otherwise upcoming ace age which already is put on hold. Now try to imagine how helplessly stupid this girl is.
+MrOperettalover You can learn from morons. No one knows everything. People with low IQ know how to treat people better many times. They also have life skills we can all learn from.
Any fact, however blatantly obvious, will be denied by someone. See flat earthers, perpetual motion cranks, ect. (Actually there are plenty of facts that noone denies, because they are obscure enough that the cranks haven't heard them)
She said to be STEM literate we need to think critically for ourselves, yet she made it out like scientific theories and beliefs are absolute, unchanging, and irrefutable. A real scientific thinker will make their own decisions about homeopathic treatments, evolution, etc.
Okay I like the overall message, but it came off as "being STEM literate means agreeing with me!" Maybe people have unpopular beliefs BECAUSE they're STEM literate, not because they aren't. Just because the majority of studies say something is true doesn't mean that it's a hard fact which cannot be questioned, and those who question it aren't stupid or "STEM illiterate."
no, actually if the majority of independant studies says the same thing, then it is most likely true, if we had tour way of thinking none of the technologies we have today would exist, becausem you see, if the majority said that quantum mechanics was true, but we pushed them to not believe this, then you wouldn't have the internet nor a computer
Yep. And if you haven't gone through the specialized training for the discipline under discussion--EVEN IF YOU'RE IN ANOTHER STEM FIELD--you don't even get a seat at the table. Simple as that. I wish politicians understood this or even cared.
John Carr Yes you do get get to sit at this table if you are schooled in any one discipline, I won't pretend to "know" what a chemist, or a physicist, etc knows. Thus, it is a very big table...with many many chairs.
Except you are missing the point of the scientific method, we trust a theory because it works, not because someone tells us to believe it. If you are scientifically literate you could read papers on a specific subject and see if the predictions are bore out by the experiment. As most experiments are repeated by numerous different groups, if they are by the majority getting the same results, we can have a justifiable expectation that our understanding is correct.
This talk feels more like propaganda from a robot programmed by a group with singular interest rather than a TEDx Talk from an actual person.... Although I don't disagree with everything she is saying, much of it is offensively oversimplified and arrogant. It is not so black and white. Labeling everything stigmatized as "pseudoscience" as harmful is just as bad as adamantly believing anything with "chemicals" in it is harmful, and using that word as a scare tactic, for example.
+mysteriouswolven It sounds more like "Here are people who are doing things wrong and here's what they look like" rather than "We have an existing problem, let's go about fixing it."
It's ironic actually, how she mentioned Steve Jobs as a good example, and yet he was into what she may call "pseudoscience". And also, if it wasn't for the first scientists believing in what it was thought to be pseudoscience, we wouldn't have the science we have today.
I wish I felt like I was good at engineering, I just have trouble thinking 3 dimensional, and I can't think realistically, I use my imagination to think, which means that I will always get the best picture of the final product in my head, not how to get there.
Emily Calandrelli that being said , it was indeed a great speach & an idea worth sharing :).Its Good to know that you're using your clear voice & percise words to lighten up the concept of stem literacy among people. keep up the good work & all the very best 👍
I agree with her about the knowledge all of us should have in topics like those. But imagine if that were as she wants, we should know about history, architecture, literature, all types of art, design, psychology etcetera. And i know what some people could tell, there are some more relevant which is false.(I will explain).The point is that even if you would want people to know more about everything in the end that's not going to work, first because everybody is free to think whatever they want and second because everybody is free to teach what they consider true. Its not about encouraging people to be more aware because most of the times they wont do. In publicity and graphic design we see the people's thoughts as something we can fix, erase, create, so there are things too complex like human behavior that can only be treated delicately, part by part, dont pretend everyone is going to share your thoughts, thats why there are careers related to communication. Yes, maths exist, physics exist, and yes not all of us know well which stuff are involved, but economics exist, communication and design exist and so not all of us know what they are about, but we never talk about how we see those careers in comparison to the related to maths, most of the time they are seen as not so important to solve problems when actually they can change minds better than maths. Thanks
Wait, wait, wait! In all you said here you disproved so much things that are actually right. Also from all you said here what is left in my mind is "Think the way I tell you to", not "Get more curious and educated", which is what I think you wanted to say. I really like your idea, but I really cannot like what you said in this TED talk.
I consider myself STEM literate. I'm an electrical engineer with a bachelor's and a master's degree. When it comes to the various topics that Ms. Calandrelli brought up, it sounds like she is saying that if we don't agree with her on these topics, then we are STEM illiterate. Perhaps she is right. As an electrical engineer, I don't pretend to know much at all about climate change - much less whether or not climate change is caused by humans. But it sounds like if you just believe what the "scientists" are saying about climate change, then Ms. Calandrelli will say you are STEM-literate, whether you actually understand the issues that the scientists are talking about. On the other hand, if you refuse to make up your mind until you have been convinced by clear and convincing evidence, then we are somehow STEM-illiterate? In this video, Ms. Calandrelli presents virtually no actual science. Rather, this sounds more like partisan politics. "If you are not a Democrat, then you must be a stupid, STEM-illiterate ignoramus." Maybe we're merely skeptical, Ms. Calandrelli. Maybe....
Dan Hillman This is a copy of a reply to someone else that I made - so please forgive any parts that seem to address something you didn't actually say. I think, however, it does answer your basic question... While what you say is strictly true, what she is really discussing is people who deny science, not those who are skeptical. And they deny because they are not 'STEM literate'. In her definition, STEM literate does not mean you have done the research and come to your own conclusions - because in order to do that for virtually every possible subject would be impossible for a single human being to do. You, for example, cannot possibly verify the research and conclusions (theories) in cosmology, physics (all of its branches), anthropology, physiology, biology, computer science, etc., etc,, etc. So, what she is REALLY saying is that if you are STEM literate (you have critical thinking skills and a rudimentary understanding of the Scientific Method), you can presume that when the majority of those who specialize in a particular scientific discipline agree - that they are most likely correct, and you should probably listen to them. She is not saying 'blind acceptance'. In fact, considering that there is likely much more money to be gained (through grants, awards and talks) for someone who is able to disprove an existing widely accepted theory, there is great likelihood that at least one individual who has a great deal of knowledge in the field is working very hard to disprove at least one or more of the accepted theories. After all, this is precisely why knowledge and technology has advanced so fast over the past few hundred years. Seriously - think about it. Now, I understand what you are trying to say - but the problem is that those who are actually not* STEM literate will almost certainly interpret your 'well said' statement as 'proof' that their denial is actually just 'healthy skepticism' and it is the 98% of climate scientists (for example) who need to work harder to prove their theory.
+Renegades Water Polo Club Psychoanalysis and Ecology at the edge of Chaos by Joseph Dodds explains the positions both of you have taken. Is STEM an acronym for Scientific Thinking Emotional Method? Just kidding. I belong to a group on Facebook of people doing research at the South Pole. Old Antarctic Explorers. My Dad went with Admiral Byrd in 1946 to Antarctica.
Only if you bring your own assumptions to the talk. To be honest, I also thought she was going to go elsewhere with the talk, but I can see the connection now.
Emily Calandrelli I get why you titled your talk that way. I like how you covered everything. I have said this phrase with such pride. It is embarrassing I did. I love how you explained all your points. I am constantly trying to change my thoughts on math and STEM literacy is a great way to lead people to understand what is going on in our daily lives. GREAT TALK! Let's do this! I will be promoting this until its changed.
She makes a good point on the general population not being STEM literate enough, but she neglects the fact that the current world (and Congress) runs on economic gains. Those men making decisions in leading environmental institutes are most likely prioritizing immediate economic gains (for themselves, their countries, fellow 1%ers) over the longer term environmental impact on humanity. The most effective way to look out for the future of humanity is not for people to be more STEM literate, but for technology advances to be aligned with economic gains.
She quickly went from an objective definition of "STEM LITERATE" to promoting her own conclusions about climate change, vaccines, etc. She uses her pre-defined illustrations of "STEM LITERACY" to actually patronize those who might disagree with her. She then goes on to turn the whole concept into political activist platforms to promote certain global and governmental agendas that she, herself, isn't very "stem literate" about. Amazing!
her point is, I think, that if you are not STEM literate, you will fall prey to snake oil salesmen. If you are stem literate, you won't buy into homeopathy, superfoods, climate change denial, moon landing hoax theories, detox diets and so on.
I do math, that's why I can think critically about the world! If you don't do math, you'll never be able to make good decisions, and you won't understand the scientific method!
Still don't understand math and I'm proud to say that I passed honors math and AP stat classes in high school simply by guessing and cheating on tests.
Articulated so well what I've thought for a while. One point of contention though. There hasn't been enough funding to do the extensive research necessary to truly and objectively determine which alternative medicine practices can be beneficial. You can't argue with personal experience. I think yoga used to be considered too "out there", yet now its everywhere because of its various physical and mental health benefits.
Hodgepodge Mama I think this is an important point. There are certainly many areas where there is not an "overwhelming body of scientific evidence" as I put it. And you're right, funding is a huge bottle neck for these issues.
Actually "personal experience" is the single greatest thing anyone should be skeptical of.. especially your own. For example, someone suffers from some non-specific "achy-painy" type of medical symptom that comes and goes. Their primary care physician can't quite pinpoint yet what it might be, but needs to try to make sure it's not a beginning symptom of something worse. So while doing a series of test, the person also starts trying every alt-medicine claim from every one of their friends, family, coworkers that "Worked for them" in trying to get some relief. They try herbal teas, homeopathy, acupuncture, crystals, etc. One after one, their "personal experience" shows them that each of these in fact DON'T work. Until, suddenly, one day they try some magnetic wrist band.. and then suddenly the next day the "achy-pains" they had been experiencing are gone (again.. assuming it's not the symptom of a deeper chronic problem). Did the magnetic wrist band actually work? No.. there's no evidence that magnetism effects your health (good or bad) in any way. What happened is the person experienced "regression to the mean". They had been suffering from these non-specific aches and pains which are very difficult to nail down the cause. However if it's not a chronic symptom of something that will keep getting worse.. the pains will go away. You don't have a headache forever unless it's a symptom of something much worse.. your headache will go away on it's own. They experience some aches and pains, then it gets better, then it gets worse, then it gets better. So what happened, is in desperation when they were experiencing the pain at it's worst, the last thing they try before it naturally gets better, they attribute through their own "personal experience" that it worked. When in fact it was just the last thing they tried before it got better on it's own. But now they have it in their head that magnetic wrist bands "work", and every time they get an "achy painy" type of non-specific symptom.. they will again try the magnetic wrist bands. Now here is the interesting part. From here on out, every time the wrist bands DON'T work, they will forget that it didn't work. But every time their body regresses to the mean and the aches and pains go away, that will further confirm to them that magnetic wrist bands work. They now have a personal experience that magnetic wrist bands work, and will further have continued confirmation bias to reinforce that it works. Once a person goes down this line of thinking, it's almost impossible to convince them otherwise. Because their line of thinking basically goes "I don't care about your double blinded placebo controlled peer reviewed replicated studies that show it doesn't work.. I know from personal experience that IT WORKED FOR ME!" And this is dangerous because what now if it IS a symptom of a much worse chronic condition so they don't go get the tests the doctor wanted, that would have found the root problem at an earlier, more easily treated stage. Now it might not be found until it's too late, and what once was treatable, is now terminal. It's important for us all to learn how our brains work, and how they can be fooled. We all need to learn what is good evidence, and what is not. We need to learn about logical fallacies and biases. We need to learn to follow logic, reason and evidence to their natural conclusion, and be humble and realize that anything one thinks they know, could be wrong, even one's most closely held beliefs. We need to learn to change our minds, when presented with new evidence. We need to learn that in order to find the truth, we need to try everything we can to prove anything we believe FALSE, because only when we CAN NOT prove our beliefs false, can we say that we are getting closer and closer to a firm understanding of what is actually true and real.
Misha H "Personal experience is one of the worst ways of telling truth from fiction." I beg to differ. Pain and comfort are strictly personal experiences, and only I know if something makes me feel better or worse. Objective medicine may claim that something is supposed to make me feel a certain way, but only I can confirm if it does or doesn't. And this is just one example. Why are there ever exceptions to scientific expectations? So-called "miraculous" cures? Subjectivity has gotten a bad rap, but I believe both objectivity and subjectivity have their place in medicine.
Misha H What is truth? What is real? Interesting that you mention herbal tea and acupuncture - both "alternative medicine" that I have used with great success. Perhaps the placebo affect is at play, but that's the point - it doesn't matter why or how something works, only that it does.
Hodgepodge Mama It doesn't matter why or how something works, only that it does??? Well.. except when it doesn't work. You may "think" that acupuncture "works".. and yet you admit that it may jsut be placebo. Let me tell you that any benefit that you got from acupuncture is purely placebo. The best controlled double blinded studies of acupuncture showed that it didn't matter who was giving the patient the acupuncture (an "acupuncturist" or just a joe off the street), it didn't matter where the needles were placed, and it didn't even matter if they were actually needles at all.. or just toothpicks poking the skin. So let's see. Doesn't matter if it's a trained "acupuncturist" or your 80 year old grandma. Doesn't matter where they stick you at. And it doesn't even matter if it's a needle piercing the skin or just a toothpick poking at you.. the effect was the same in all situations... which was minimal. I would say that's pretty clear that any minor effect at all is pure placebo. And doesn't matter huh? Well.. what about those that think that ground up rhino horns has some type of "magical" healing properties? Which it doesn't. But because people "believe" that it works, poachers are hunting them towards extinction. What about shark fins (same thing)? Oh.. and I'm sure that acupuncture was charging you money? I don't know about you, but I sure would like to know that whatever I'm paying for.. is actually going to do something.. beyond just placebo. Oh.. and then what about people who forgo science based medicine treatments that are proven to work and in stead try some flaky "alt medicine" instead? I'm sure Steve Jobs would have preferred to use the actual proven medical treatment where he would have had a high percentage chance of still being alive, rather than the "alt medicine" herbal tea type garbage he "read off the internet". Ever wonder why alternative medicine pretty much always claims to treat the loosy-goosy-ache-and-pain kind of aliments? It's because those are the symptoms that are very hard to pin down, they usually come and go, and so forth.. and are very subjective in what the person claims. IE.. there's no easy way to measure how much "achy-painy" someone is feeling accept asking them to "self-report". "Self-reported" feelings is not data. And achy-pains tend to come and go on their own... which is why alt-medicine prays on that feature to persuade people that the alt-treatment "works". At best.. you are getting placebo, most of the time you are getting nothing, and at worse you are getting something that will cause more harm. Unless one understands "regression to the mean", one is always at risk for confirmation bias that some alt-medicine "works". Again.. there is only two types of medicine/treatments. Those that have been proven to work, and those that have been proven not to work. Do you know that they call "alt-medicine" that has been proven to work? It's called medicine. Also ever wonder why we don't have "alt-physics"? Or "alt-math"? Or "western" vs "eastern" physics? Then why is there an "alt-medicine"? Shouldn't there just be medicine that has been proven to work? And "it worked for me" personal experience is not evidence. But don't take my word for it. Do your own research. However, I know you can find tons of "personal experience" that acupuncture (or whatever alt-medicine claim) "worked" for someone. I could probably find 100 people who claim (and honestly believe) that they were abducted by aliens last night. But I would wager that you wouldn't actually believe them. You can also find the entities trying to sell you the stuff that claiming that it works. And you can read all that and go.. "See.. it works!". No.. you actually have to read the information on the OTHER side. You have to read all of the published and peer reviewed papers on acupuncture. Not one.. not two.. but several. If any report a possible benefit, then read the peer-reviewed comments on that study. Read Science Based Medicene blog... find other sources that conflict with your belief and actually read the information and studies and papers and such that conflict with your belief. Then decide if you still believe that "it works". And if so.. then do your own double blinded placebo controlled study, get it published, then peer reviewed and replicated. Then we will see if you can actually prove that it works.
i used to say stuff like i dont do math, now i say i dont do algebra, because i just dont get it, but geometry just clicks for me, maybe it had to do with my artistic upbringing and being (i feel like this is rare in young artists)fascinated with composition, which is very abstract. but i always loved science cause it was about real stuff, and history was about real stuff from the past(what happened, not just what date it happened), i liked all that stuff. what i hate is all this focus on academics, like abstract academics that we learned when we were young but people think they need to keep pounding in us our whole lives. why cant we get on to the cool stuff, lets say cars, im not a huge car person but i know that a lot of people are, lets learn about how they work, thatd be cool right? lets learn about that stuff in the real world and the past that inspires all these fictional things that we watch and read and play. i really am just so tired of taking basically algebra every year till middle school, then in middle school taking it again and then maybe finally moving on to geometry(couldnt cause i such at algebra, gg) then you have to take algebra again in high school(and then algebra 2 i think, aside from the class i had to take becuse i didnt pass some math test so they gave me another class). and then you go on to college and, whats this? why wouldnt you have to take algebra again after the 10 algebra classes you took before during every single school year previous. its no wonder im apathetic to math, i was so happy that i understood geometry, there may have been some sick selfish enjoyment sometimes when i was the first one to get a question in geometry while everyone else who had previously been all great in algebra was strugling. not to mention writing the same lame essays year after year(especially "what did you do over your summer?" cause you know what i did? i sat at home im an introvert, i drew, read, and played video games.) learning the same grammar rules the same vocabulary, what a surprize i started to not enjoy writing because it was time consuming(and of course i had to wright with my absolutely terrible, heavy handed, slow, handwriting)(at least my spelling was good back then, i do acknowledge that my spelling is bad, but im not looking at what im writing and i type faster than i am good at, its not like i practiced). im more interested in say.. descriptive language and poetry(not so much the poetry that they presented to us... well probobly every year i guess that some years my english teacher didnt go). that was a rant no one needed to read, but if i deleated this i would feel a sense of loss and dissapointment.
WadMizard ZOL I think you made many valid points, and I thank you for sharing them. On a lighter note, I think you could have done with a few more grammar lessons (e.g., proper capitalization and punctuation). LOL Seriously, though, thank you for sharing, because I know some of my sisters went through this same line of thought. I'm more scientifically-minded, so I hated social studies (particularly history) while going through middle school and most of high school. Now, I love it (particularly Middle Ages, Ancient Rome, and the foundations of the American Republic form of government), but I didn't really get much out of it while in school because it was - as you said - writing the same lame essays or studying the same years and dates. None of it was in proper context... until I got to college and was playing Civilization. Then, the timeline - how one led to the other - made MUCH more sense. My advice is to just find some topics that interest you, and then see what the other academic fields have to say about that topic. For example, if you like poetry, you can see what mathematics has to say about meter and rhyme schemes (e.g., 2 couplets where the 1st and 3rd lines rhyme and the 2nd and 4th rhyme is denoted as an ABAB rhyme scheme - that's a form of algebra!); you could study what neuroscience and psychology has to say about the effect of certain types of poetry on the brain (including forms of music, from romantic ballads to rap to rage metal); you could research the history of how different cultures, civilizations, and nations promoted or even commissioned poets (from Virgil and Ovid to the medieval bards to Nobel Prizes for poetry). Almost every field has something to say about almost every topic because that's just how human beings are - we are all "Renaissance Men" at heart, with many more interests than simply "what we're good at". Enjoy life!
***** While i'm not sure about the ins and outs of grammar, its really that in commenting online i type faster than i am good at; also i leave my i's uncapitalized because i like to think i'm being humble(even when i'm not being lazy). i always liked ancient civilizations, i guess it was as close to fantasy as i would get back when i "only liked real stuff"(maybe cause everyone else didn't idk, i was like that a lot when i was younger); though despite that i still loved mythology. whenever the modern wars(like civil war onward, wars with guns really) come up though i am just uninterested, they seem so grey whereas old civilizations seem so intriguing.(also i swords seemed so much cooler than guns to me, not if this is a cause, effect, or simply a coincidence) i am going to be a game designer some day, so it makes me feel good to see you mention a video game in such a context.
Kenneth Roberts That trust has to be earned. Anyone who is granted a trust must demonstrate himself to be trustworthy. Trust and respect are to be earned; not given. The burden here is on the person who wants to be trusted. Unless you are God, demanding that people trust you is insensitive, obnoxious, and more than a little bit creepy. There is little that a person can say that will cause me to distrust them more than the words, "Trust me." And it doesn't help when the person saying, "Trust me" has a smug, condescending attitude and consistently sets up and then knocks down straw man arguments to make her political opponents look stupid.
Kenneth Roberts No, you simply have to know how to review references and recognize what 'peer reviewed' means. Then trust is not really the issue at that point.
Renegades Water Polo Club I agreed, I just find that there are many individuals who are just unwilling to learn, and call out the people doing the actual work, as if they are wrong.
STEM literacy is a useless word. It basically means thinking objectively. Calandrelli just says if you agree with scientists or popular opinions labeled as "scientific" you are STEM literate. No, you aren't. Just how you aren't objective. You still have to be skeptic, gather facts, and understand and even in this case you can't say you know the absolute truth. Neither the scientists can say this. In the best case they just have the most logical explanation (at the moment). Calandrelli talks about controversial topics like she knows the (of course STEM literate) truth, showing that if you are STEM literate on a topic, you know what is the "truth". This is just plain wrong. This has nothing to do with objectivity, or "STEM literacy" if you want to use a fancy word.
+Pata Tamás It's not possible to know everything about everything. STEM literacy includes knowing when to accept the opinion of someone better educated in a field than you are, and how to judge whether their opinion makes sense.
If I may, and with great respect: I find the talk to be off topic. I agree with Ms Candrelli: I have found that in most STEM related subjects common sense helps. Evolution, for instance, makes sense. And the theory is supportedby an overwhelming body of evidence. I use common sense and try to keep informed, by consulting authoritative sources. Sources that, unlike me, have scientific training. In a way, my approach is similar to that of President Obama's as described by Ms Candrelli. But I can't do maths. And since this is the title of the talk I had hoped that it would be the subject, but Ms Candrelli simply doesn't mention that M in STEM!
I believe that if more Stem literate people were also Humanities literate the world would be a much better place. The opposite is true as well, obviously, but I feel like Stem educated people don't need to be reminded of it, considering how high on their pedestral they are.
+sedeslav Then you have a problem with all culture. How many people in the Bible weighed food? How many people measured as carpenters? Who built the pyramids? Medical doctors are telling patients to guess portions and you ignore this and tell us that with all the precise measurements in the Bible, with Noah, Joseph, the Wilderness, carpentry and Jesus that STEM is not to be found in the Bible? Look again perhaps.
+Charlotte Fairchild The building of the pyramids has absolutely nothing to do with the Bible; quite possibly nothing to do with religion as well, but from man's need and desire to locate himself in the universe.
+Ahmose Reigns The pyramids were built by a race between 400 and 500 years way before Christ. The Hebrews built the pyramids as slaves. This is in the Bible. It is one of the character building "jobs" in the Bible for the Hebrew people. The math in the building of the pyramids were exceptional. The weighing of food kept people from eating too much during plenty and from cannibalism during famine. The math is involved in pyramids, weight/measurement, time, and is written about in the ancient words of the Bible, older than the Quran. There are older books/writings. Yet this book we call the Bible is known by many more people than the other books. Perhaps the narcissistic men who needed a pyramid to be buried in located themselves in the universe as more important than anyone else since people need a higher power.
+Charlotte Fairchild A. "The pyramids were built by a race between 400 and 500 years way before Christ." That sentence makes no sense whatsoever. Are you saying 1) 'It took anywhere from 400 to 500 years to build the pyramids, and 2) it was way before Christ'? Or, are you saying 'the pyramids were built 400 to 500 years before Christ'? Which one is it, because these are two different statements and either one could be inferred from what you inarticulately preposed. I can't even lucidly respond until I first make sense of what it is you're attempting to say. B. "The Hebrews built the pyramids as slaves. This is in the Bible. It is one of the character building "jobs" in the Bible for the Hebrew people." Apparently you're archaeologically illiterate as that particular science of the humanities determined a long time ago that the Egyptian pyramids were not built by slaves, Hebrew or otherwise: 1. "the pyramids were not built by slaves or foreigners" The Pyramid Builders, National Geographic Magazine by Virginia Morell (American journalist and author who writes for the Smithsonian, Science and National Geographic magazines) ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/data/2001/11/01/html/ft_20011101.5.fulltext.html 2. "Pharaoh Khufu, second ruler of the fourth dynasty, constructed the Great Pyramid. Herodotus reported that Khufu enslaved thousands of people in order to build his huge pyramid, but he was later proven incorrect. National Geographic reports, "Excavated skeletons show that they [pyramid workers] were Egyptians who lived in villages developed and overseen by the pharaoh's supervisors." Pharaoh Khafre was the son of Khufu. He built the Pyramid of Khafre and many statues, including the famous statue of the Sphinx. Pharaoh Menkaure, sixth ruler of the fourth dynasty, died before his pyramid's completion. Shepseskaf, his heir, finished it in 2490 B.C." traveltips.usatoday.com/great-pyramids-giza-1205.html 3. "National Geographic indicates that archaeologists estimate that 20,000 to 30,000 Egyptians built the pyramids at Giza over the course of 80 years. To construct the pyramids, first priests and astronomers determined the correct position for the pyramid. Architects used ropes to guide the shape from the corners to the pinnacle. Then workers hauled huge blocks of limestone up ramps. The Encyclopedia Smithsonian indicates that Egyptian workers used copper tools to sculpt the rock, “Egyptians had copper tools such as chisels, drills and saws that may have been used to cut the relatively soft stone.” The names of workers and their work groups were chiseled into some of the stones of the pyramids. National Geographic notes, "Graffiti indicates that at least some of these workers took pride in their work, calling their teams 'Friends of Khufu,' 'Drunkards of Menkaure,' and so on-names indicating allegiances to pharaohs." traveltips.usatoday.com/great-pyramids-giza-1205.html Sorry Grandma, Hebrews HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BUILDING OF THE PYRAMIDS OF EGYPT. Until you get your facts straight and can articulate what you'd like to say in a comprehensive manner, I really don't think it's even necessary to address anything else you more than likely got incorrect. PS. Oh, and one last thing… the Great Pyramid of Egypt was built c. 2580-2560 BC… no Hebrew existed anywhere on planet earth at that period. Abraham, the first Hebrew, according to the published Bible timeline, does not even make it to Egypt until 2091 BC (biblehub.com/timeline/ ) that's almost 500 YEARS AFTER the pyramids were already built. I guess they don't teach people how to count in Sunday school, only the pastor can count, all of the money in the collection plate, because the congregation certainly can't count, not if they actually believe 'Hebrews built pyramids in Egypt'. That's like saying President Bill Clinton shook hands with Christopher Columbus; umm a 500 year difference says, no, I don't think so. C. "The math in the building of the pyramids were exceptional. The weighing of food kept people from eating too much during plenty and from cannibalism during famine. The math is involved in pyramids, weight/measurement, time, and is written about in the ancient words of the Bible, older than the Quran. There are older books/writings. Yet this book we call the Bible is known by many more people than the other books." The math of pyramids is the result of the scholar priests of ancient Egypt, not Hebrews or anyone else. If the Bible mentions it, big deal, the Bible didn't create it, nor did anyone who took credit for writing it, nor anyone who was given credit for writing it. Reporting on something someone else did doesn't imbue you with their credit. Sports writers don't get credit for home runs and touchdowns that were made by other people. D. "Perhaps the narcissistic men who needed a pyramid to be buried in located themselves in the universe as more important than anyone else since people need a higher power." Perhaps your own narcissism induces you to pronounce judgement on a culture and civilization you are apparently ignorant about (your statements prove it, all of them). Number two, it was never said that it was the kings who were seeking to locate their very own person in the universe, but that the construction was undertaken as national projects for the benefit of the state; without that effort modern astronomy would not even exist.
I absolutely loved the speech! I thought you'd get into the topic of women not wanting to pursue STEM careers, but the truth is this may be even more important. You are a great example of what the STEM community should be like when communicating to the general public and are doing a lot of good. Keep it up!
"I can't do math." Is the confidence in being able to correctly identify a profound deficit after being forced to listen to instruction that didn't make sense likely K-12. As an English speaker, how well could you learn math if the instruction was exclusively in a language you didn't know? Seriously, Celebrate the self expression "I can't do math" as a cathartic & constructive statement after being in a very bad (Mathematical) relationship K-12.
+CzechRiot IMHO If somebody would like to be him/herself taken seriously especially in a scientific environment, he/she should dress accordingly. In other words: you want their minds attention not their other parts...
Her call for us to be STEM-literate is great, but a lot of the examples used actually damage her argument and alienate certain listeners because she is insisting we believe what she believes... rather than, well, truly being STEM-literate, thinking critically, and considering all factors (including our personal values and belief systems), to come up with an informed decision of our own. Personal values and beliefs DO matter-- you can't just "blindly" believe something because research/statistics "say so." There are a lot of politics and hidden motives involved in popular STEM topics-- To name one: Cancer? And sometimes a topic hasn't been researched for long enough to have conclusive results. We live in a world where we are constantly learning new information, new research is being done, etc. Yes, STEM-literacy is so important. But this is the first TED talk I've heard where I felt like someone was pushing their own beliefs onto me.
I’m angry: Ms Calandrelli is grossly unfair when she says people seem proud about not being able to do maths.This is a sweeping statement. It leaves out all those who say they can’t do maths and are NOT proud of it. I can't do maths. I’m neither proud nor ashamed: I’m simply stating it as fact. She says people don’t say “I can’t read”: by saying this she reveals her ignorance. Because math is is the only subject that provokes this reaction with people. Maths is quite simply a unique subject that calls for a very different kind of reasoning. STEM literacy is important. The problem is that the S, T, and E all depend to some extent on M. My level in maths has been assessed: it is equivalent to that of an eight or nine year old. So my M is practically non-existent, so my understanding of S, T, and E will be very limited.
Great job! It's like hearing my own thoughts on these matters. I agree with everything said. Now could you do it all again using the Canadian government... Lol
I'm no scientist, but I did my research to find out what they had to say in Evolution. I'm much more into the physical sciences and math, so I learned a little about the Biological sciences. One of the arguments I actually get when debating Evolutionists is them saying "You're not a scientist so you have no authority to disagree with them." Not true, I can learn and understand what they have to say and it really doesn't take a scientist to understand that Evolution is false. It's actually really easy to refute it.
I agree with almost all of what you said. It makes me cringe when people announce that they don't do numbers. But really my concern isn't as much that they ignore what has been scientifically proven but that they never actually look into it at all. In some cases they believe what science has "proven" or at least what they have been told has been proven without looking at the entire body of evidence in a logical way. This brings me to the evolution topic, It is generally accepted that we have evolved from apes, however it has not been proven. In this matter, logically looking at the science of what is known and what isn't about the origin of the world leads to one conclusion, we are all people of faith. You either have faith in the evolution of species from slime that appeared out of nothingness or you have faith that you were created by a God. If people would only allow their minds to be open to any logical possibility and then follow those possibilities to a conclusion based on evidence, the world truly would be a better place.
DCARA06 evolution was proven and there are thousands and thousands of pieces of evidence, read books about it, visit a science museum (not the creationist museum in Kentucky)...
David Caplette Thanks I have a science degree major in Biology. I have read many books, journals, etc. on evolution and no it is not proven, not by a very long shot.....long as in eternally long shot.
David Caplette not proven - it has only been stated as a theory, and it does (for the most part) make sense. Even the popes have acknowledged evolution may be a valid theory. Saying it's proven implies that the results have been reproduced (which, obviously, would take millions of years, according to the theory). There is some supporting evidence, but no definitive proof, and more importantly, no way of predicting what comes next. Think, if you will, about another example: the Newtonian model of gravity and the solar system. The theory of gravity - as proposed by Newton - was good and explained many things. But it had flaws. It could predict *most* planetary motions, but there were some that it couldn't explain (e.g., the precession of Mercury). That's why it's called the "theory" of gravity: it wasn't perfect, it wasn't proven definitively, and nobody understood how or why it worked. Then Einstein came along with his theory of General Relativity, and that not only encompassed Newton's theory of gravity, but also gave an explanation for the flaws in Newton's theory. And Einstein was able to predict what would happen by observing light bending around the Sun during a solar eclipse, he could more accurately predict the orbital path of Mercury, and many other things besides (e.g., the possibility of black holes). The current theory of evolution does not yet have such a pedigree (and it is doubtful it ever will, due to the time scales involved). P.S. I am no "young Earther" either. There are more flaws in those theories - which are shaped to fit the narrative of poetic language contained in the first chapter of Genesis - than in the current theories of geology and evolution. But the wrongness of one theory does not instantly give absolute credibility to a competing theory. Both can be wrong (to varying - or the same - degree, depending on the specific piece of evidence being examined).
DCARA06 The problem you are displaying is that you do not understand what science is all about. Science does not 'prove' things to be 100% certain. What it does is make suggestions about what *seems* to be the truth and then uses continuous testing and observation to hone in on it better. In other words, as far as the Scientific Method is concerned, the only thing considered absolutely 'true' is a self-evident truth - otherwise known as a fact. A theory is simply a 'best possible explanation' for something that is not self-evident. It is never considered 100% certain. However, the more it is tested, the more certain its 'truth' is considered. The theories that have been tested the most, and passed every test, are often considered 'fact' by the layperson - but they are not. Take evolution. The theory has been modified over time to account for errors/mistakes in the theory - however, because it is so 'controversial' for many, it has become one of the most well tested theories in all of science. It has also been used to predict the characteristics of intermediate species whose fossils have not yet been found - and in numerous cases those predictions have been proven true when new fossils have been discovered. In addition, the recent science of DNA analysis has provided one of the most convincing 'proofs' that evolution is, in fact, an extremely accurate theory. Your so-called 'reasoning' that uses human ignorance as a basis of 'proof' by stating that 'people have faith' in evolution shows an astounding lack of understanding about both the theory and science in general. Hence, you are one of the poster children for the dangerous type of thinking that Emily discusses in this video. However, given the tone of your reply, wherein you seem absolutely certain of the 'truth' of your ignorance, I doubt that even this explanation will penetrate very far into your wall of denial.
Brava! Outstanding! Fight STEM-illiteracy! When someone says "I don't do math" what I *hear* is "I don't know how to think." Also very impressed how Ms Calandrelli stood still and spoke for 16 minutes without having to pace around like a caged animal with ADD. Very centered, which makes the talk all the more compelling.
Somebody chooses to interpret data differently, they must be illiterate? The only illiterate person here is the speaker, who is clearly illiterate when it comes to understanding diversity of opinion and thought.
All scientists are like that. My way is the highway. She mentioned vaccines but not all the problems with that nor the sterilization vaccines that have reportedly used in Africa or the developmental retardation in children that has also been reported by pediatric doctors in the US and other countries due to the immune system being overwhelmed...
Interpreting data is also complicated and might lead to divergent conclusions wether you say the one or the other factor is responsible for your result. Knowing the theory behind the weighted factors influing on the phenomenon is primordial for a reliable interpretation. To take the example of climate change or preventing high flood events, not only the air T° and moisture, but also the soil properties (T°, infiltration capacity, water content, colour, ...) , the geodetic location, etc.. come into the game. You have to rank them and to simplify everything about them: they all are related to oneanother. Climate change is a big cable spaghetti... :D
+morgengabe1 I feel like the young mommy pointed her index finger on me, blaming me for having done some shit. On the other site her intelligence and the serious look in her eyes rarely changing to a cute smile made me really enjoy watching her. @CzechRiot Wouldn't blame her sexappeal on the skirt - she will look gorgeous in business-pants, too.
I think the main problem is that we don't actually teach science in schools. We teach scientific facts. We teach science as information from authority. Information that must be memorized to get the right answer for the test. Not one lesson spends any time on how science works and we sure don't teach kids how to think scientifically. Information from authority is the exact opposite of science. And because we teach science as information from authority kids don't have any way to judge what is true and what is not. When their Sunday School teacher tells them that humans were created by a magical being they have no idea how to tell which one is really correct.
I tell people about things like whole body vibration, and NASA's research, and doctors and physical therapists have no clue what it is. NASA is not alternative and has done research on whole body vibration helping bones. People have lost touch with cutting edge science. Heck, most people don't understand what happens when they ingest vinegar! I used to do much more math. I took physics in high school and astronomy in college. I failed algebra in high school and went to summer school. My score in math was higher than in English, so I majored in English to improve English. I married an accountant so I don't do math often except with weighing food. In the Bible, Joesph saved Egypt by measuring food during times of famine and plenty. The Health Fair website has info that weighing food is the most scientific way to prevent eating too much or too little. I meet people all the time who say they don't read. I write books so they aren't interested in any books.
Thank you Emily, an admirable effort. It is an age-old struggle between the light of the truth and the darkness of ignorance. You're stepping into the light and adding your 2¢ is appreciated. There is still a very long way to go. Be assured and take comfort that the light will eventually overcome the darkness, the willfully ignorant cannot succeed in the long term and the truth can only be denied for a time. We all have more to learn.
I hate when steve jobs is compared to einstein or just about any other super nerd out there. He was a salesman, not a super nerd.
He was both.
I love me some Steve hating, but the man was an incredible force and changed a lot about the world of technology. for better and for worse
Einstein wasn't a nerd he was a fukin genius. The scientist promoting gmo and other fucked up shyt are nerds trying to get back at society for their fucked up childhoods
that is your justification for being dumb. :))
Riken Maharjan His favourite book was "Autobigraphy of a Yogi" which is about an indian fraud who has magical powers so yeah, not a genius....
+Titan Army Well said.
As someone who reads a lot...people brag about not reading _all the time_. The number of people who've been found it weird that I like to read and proudly told me they've never read a book in their lives (outside of school) is astounding.
yeah I totally agree.
As a teenager I don't know if its always been like this, but there are just so many people who brag about how they don't read.
And its not even just in academically behind people (unlike maths, I find that people who have high level of education tend to recognise maths as an important skill) but those who are perfectly doing well in school does it too.
Why do all of these people glorify Steve Jobs when it comes to technology?? Whenever someone needs a example on anything computer/technology based, it's always him. He was a CEO. Not a inventor, engineer or anything else that involves STEM.
If you want influential people in the computer science field who actually engineered or invented something, go beyond the damn marketing guys. If you absolutely need to use a Apple example say Steve Wozniak for heavens sake. You could literally use 100's of examples ranging from Charles Babbage, Alan Turing or Bjarne Stroustrup... If you absolutely have to use a corporate tycoon than say Bill Gates, it least he actually created/engineered a product.
Good question. Steve Jobs was ok.
+Raylet2 (I do not use a single Apple product). Steve Jobs helped bridge the gap between the tech and human. It was his guidance and leadership that helped highly educated (and not) people from many backgrounds use retail tech in a way that fitted the people and not the programmer. That's why they use his face when it comes to tech.
+Raylet2 Excellent point. Not only did Steve Jobs didn't create jack squat, he just took credit for people's creations.
+Caleb knott Einstein didn´t do much? like you have done anything better than him for humanity (or ever will) not even your sons or their´s will do anything compared to what he did. You would prefer your picture instead of his in the presentation?
+Raylet2 As far as I know it's a misconception that Einstein wasn't good at mathematics. I want to leave this with an important name in computer science, Dennis Ritchie.
It's so refreshing when a speaker doesn't feel the need to wave their arms all over the place. Great delivery.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. If you accept that smoking is bad for you, that does NOT mean you are 'STEM literate'. If you accept without understanding or questioning, then you don't know what you're talking about. To be STEM literate, surely you have to make inquiries and find out the facts. THEN, when you conclude - not accept, conclude - that smoking is harmful, you can claim to be 'STEM literate'.
She goes on to apply her definition to people who don't believe in climate change, evolution, vaccinations etc. - her objection isn't that they don't understand - it's that they don't accept. She's not preaching learning, she's preaching compliance. Saying "I don' t understand it but I know people who do." is no different from a preacher claiming that we don't need the gods to speak to us directly, the Oracle had a vision and that should be good enough.
EDUCATION in math/science is crucial. Skepticism and inquiry, not just wide acceptance of whatever consensus opinion is. Understanding, not compliance.
WalterLiddy Amen!
WalterLiddy Thank you! I couldn't have said it better myself. She is far from STEM literate, herself; she demonstrated that to me in her presentation in this video, numerous times. You're right when you say that she's preaching compliance. It's unfortunate and frustrating to see this sort of thing even happens.
WalterLiddy While what you say is strictly true, what she is really discussing is people who *deny* science, not those who are skeptical. And they deny because they are not 'STEM literate'. In her definition, STEM literate does *not* mean you have done the research and come to your own conclusions - because in order to do that for virtually every possible subject would be impossible for a single human being to do. You, for example, cannot possibly verify the research and conclusions (theories) in cosmology, physics (all of its branches), anthropology, physiology, biology, computer science, etc., etc,, etc.
So, what she is *REALLY* saying is that if you are STEM literate (you have critical thinking skills and a rudimentary understanding of the Scientific Method), you can *presume* that when the majority of those who specialize in a particular scientific discipline agree - that they are most likely correct, and you should probably listen to them. She is *not* saying 'blind acceptance'. In fact, considering that there is likely much more money to be gained (through grants, awards and talks) for someone who is able to *disprove* an existing widely accepted theory, there is great likelihood that at least one individual who has a great deal of knowledge in the field is working very hard to disprove at least one or more of the accepted theories. After all, this is precisely why knowledge and technology has advanced so fast over the past few hundred years. Seriously - think about it.
Now, I understand what you are trying to say - but the problem is that those who are actually not* STEM literate will almost certainly interpret your 'well said' statement as 'proof' that their denial is actually just 'healthy skepticism' and it is the 98% of climate scientists (for example) who need to work harder to prove their theory.
+WalterLiddy I agree. Though she's preaching 'Science', what comes out of her mouth is anti-science. Science doesn't care what conclusions you come to. Often there are only more questions, but with it comes more understanding, especially in complex systems like the ones she mentioned. There just isn't a simple answer to those questions, so why reduce the science into an agreement with some forced opinions of a majority? She's confusing science with politics. There's plenty of room for individual freedom of thought in science. She's so cute, though, I can't be mad. I like her gumption, just not what she's saying.
ooopaulo I wish I could give you more than 1 TU for the completeness of that post:
- she's unscientific... check!
- better explanation of the scientific process... check!
- acknowledgement that she's cute anyway... check!
DO MATH AND YOU WILL SEE THE BEAUTY OF OUR UNIVERSE
What if I don't get it
yeah i cant comprehend it so no 💀
Shut up maths is a human concept, just like how u can be one an artist and see the beauty of the universe
What scares me more than STEM illeteracy is people who consider themselves STEM literate, but can't detect logical fallacies in their own thinking.
100%...i am with u.....
+M Jones And how many logical fallacies are there? lol
M Jones Can't detect logical fallacies? Hmm. Then I guess you could call those people "illogical phalluses."
@M Jones. Who do I know that is STEM illiterate? Hmmm? Oh yeah, that's right, the flat Earth dummies all over CZcams.
I am currently studying advanced maths and physics and completely disagree with her. She believes in global warming, I do not let's think logically. If anyone is going to know global warming is false it's the ones who run NASA, why would they donate money to something which does not exist it's a simple waste of money! Think more openly if I wanted to create something false which many do not understand due to the lack of those in stem fields, all I must do is pay top scientists to fabricate data and "presto".
This is my math teacher's sister
Ask your math teacher why her sister is a propagandist
Jasraj Sekhon you don't get what she said... don't you?
I really wish there were an international version of this video. I really like how Ms Calandrelli shows how important STEM literacy is, and as a secondary mathematics teacher, it's something I'd really like my students to understand, but it might not do much good showing this particular video to my classes, because I'm a Canadian who works in England, with students who come from all over the world (but only 1 of my 140 students is American). It would be easy for my students to categorise most of these issues as American issues after watching this, even though they're in fact global issues that are presented from an American viewpoint. Too bad. Guess I'll keep looking!
So well articulated. Keep on winning, Emily!
You there?
Beautiful talk.Smartly addressed a problem and optimal solution.
I'd very much enjoy talking with this person. Her sarcasm, audacity and interests are great. Seems like a very fun person to converse with.
3:43 I hate to disagree, but that doesn't define STEM literate at all. A STEM literate questions the theories, put forward by some people in the name of science, through their own understanding of the matter and statistical analysis. Don't believe in anything unless you definitively check the possible loose ends or question it otherwise, that's what being a STEM literate means.
well put my friend
You're not even literate. You need to learn how to use a comma and when to use their, there and they're.
In any case, context matters. We don't need the general public to be scientists. We need them to understand the basics of what science is, why extensive studies are important, why scientific consensus is a positive thing, what peer review is, why even peer reviewed papers can contradict each other and why the mainstream media are shit at reporting science.
They don't need to "question theories". They have neither the training or time to do that effectively. STEM literacy in this context means exactly what she put forward.
2LegHumanist: You are an douche for defaming others.
vishwanathstorm You mean in my response to the douche who was demeaning others?
0:48 actually in South Africa, a lot of people will proudly tell you that they don't read. This is unfortunate, but it explains a lot about what is happening in parliament...
The other day i saw a meme "Zombies: the only men that will love you for your brain". Now watching Emily Calandrelli i cannot imagine how that is possible. Intelligence is sexy. Period! She is such an inspiration for all and a far better role model for young girls that what we currently have.
That moment where your entire lecture about STEM literacy ignores all the scientists who disagree with her. The problem is not STEM illiteracy, it's politics and censorship. If one paper came out on vaccines and autism against 99 papers that did not connect the two, it would not be dangerous. But when paper after paper denies human-caused climate change and connects vaccines and adverse outcomes but are vilified and taken down by the government, THAT is a problem.
This is so true ! I am 17 years old and can not wait till I start studying at university. I want to study Mathematics and Physics but I am the only one in my entire school who wants to go into STEM field. People want to go into acting and graphic design,not that they can't do what they want. I feel that the products of science and engineering are taken for granted. This is sad :(
I don't understand why this makes you sad? Less competition for jobs down the line....
Very well done Emily. Being in a STEM company, having a background in Engineering, and a supporter of STEM in education, I applaud how articulate you were in getting your point across. Oh, and I am an Oregon State Alum!
That's really nice of you Ananda! Thank you, it means a lot - especially from someone with your background! And Oregon State is awesome! Loved visiting.
STEM is fine, but bashing the other side of the isle with ignorance isn't. It would be best to understand the other side's argument before you get in front of the world and open your mouth. It's sickening to see how much so many people are instilled with politically-dictated beliefs. She's just showing herself to be a mouthpiece rather than someone who Carl Sagen would describe as having the ability to think scientifically.
Disclaimer:
*Not a Republican, not a Democrat, not a Third-Party voter*
Great! Ted talks I liked how you engaged the audience looking directly at them the whole time to make the audience feel engaged and interested in your talk.
This is wonderful. Thank you! I will be showing this to my 8th grade science students this week. As a teacher, STEM literacy is something I am deeply committed to. Btw, I have that same Carl Sagan quote on my classroom website.
Just a perfect talk. How amazing you are giving talks! Please start your own you tube channel. You are an excellent educator... Who gives the stage
impression you are from the future...
I just love how she barely uses her arms when talking. She appears so calm and relaxed. I'm a twitchy person so I really admire this.
Edited: She does do a lot of head bobbing though. It's cute imo
I love this TED talk. I've used it to promote science to my friends!
I lost all patience when she used Einstein and Jobs in context of theoretic excellency, but I forced myself keep watching motivated by imagine I was fing her face. I help out with her stupidity until she poited out how many republicans denying significant man made rise in temperature, but she "forgot" the decency to explain by the fact this is the only way to fight climate hysteria. It is not politically possible (it will be later) to fight Status Quo religion, thus you have to deny significant man made rise in temperature to stop leakage of tax money into green nonsense. Some decades from now when this knew religion is no longer popular people will see how great five degrees rise of temperature is. Specially in context of the otherwise upcoming ace age which already is put on hold. Now try to imagine how helplessly stupid this girl is.
+MrOperettalover Where's your TED Talk?
+Darcy Whyte Why would I deliberately assosiate myself with morons?
+MrOperettalover You can learn from morons. No one knows everything. People with low IQ know how to treat people better many times. They also have life skills we can all learn from.
I have a sister-in-law who has a PhD in science. She is blonde, beautiful and plays a full harp, not the zither autoharp that I do.
what!? people still deny evolution?! WTF
+TheVictorious98 There are people who believe evolution happened after creation. The best of both worlds!
Oh you'd be surprised lmao, it's crazy.
Any fact, however blatantly obvious, will be denied by someone. See flat earthers, perpetual motion cranks, ect.
(Actually there are plenty of facts that noone denies, because they are obscure enough that the cranks haven't heard them)
She seems so at ease talking to a crowd. Great Ted talk! Stay curious!!!
More people need to see this!
Aneesh Sompalli why is that? i see no value in it
+CZcams Aneesh First Ted Talk I have stopped before the end. Propaganda not Education. Even if I agree with some of what she says.
+CZcams Aneesh First Ted Talk I have stopped before the end. Propaganda not Education. Even if I agree with some of what she says.
+edmartian Totally with you on this one!
+PBrofaith That says a lot about you.
She said to be STEM literate we need to think critically for ourselves, yet she made it out like scientific theories and beliefs are absolute, unchanging, and irrefutable. A real scientific thinker will make their own decisions about homeopathic treatments, evolution, etc.
Okay I like the overall message, but it came off as "being STEM literate means agreeing with me!" Maybe people have unpopular beliefs BECAUSE they're STEM literate, not because they aren't. Just because the majority of studies say something is true doesn't mean that it's a hard fact which cannot be questioned, and those who question it aren't stupid or "STEM illiterate."
no, actually if the majority of independant studies says the same thing, then it is most likely true, if we had tour way of thinking none of the technologies we have today would exist, becausem you see, if the majority said that quantum mechanics was true, but we pushed them to not believe this, then you wouldn't have the internet nor a computer
Yep. And if you haven't gone through the specialized training for the discipline under discussion--EVEN IF YOU'RE IN ANOTHER STEM FIELD--you don't even get a seat at the table. Simple as that. I wish politicians understood this or even cared.
John Carr Yes you do get get to sit at this table if you are schooled in any one discipline, I won't pretend to "know" what a chemist, or a physicist, etc knows. Thus, it is a very big table...with many many chairs.
Except you are missing the point of the scientific method, we trust a theory because it works, not because someone tells us to believe it.
If you are scientifically literate you could read papers on a specific subject and see if the predictions are bore out by the experiment. As most experiments are repeated by numerous different groups, if they are by the majority getting the same results, we can have a justifiable expectation that our understanding is correct.
Regarding the original comment by lots-of-tater-tots:
I couldn't agree more! Spot on analysis.
emily callendrelli for president
Does anyone else notice she turns from side to side as an sprinkler throughout the entire video?
+CHAPI929292 :D
evenly spreading that knowledge
Emily Calandrelli for president.
Take a shot every time she says "Stem Literate".
I'd be passed out before the end of the video.
Even after this speech I still don't do math but I love science
Well ur still stem literate bro. But I love both. Maths more 😂
This talk feels more like propaganda from a robot programmed by a group with singular interest rather than a TEDx Talk from an actual person....
Although I don't disagree with everything she is saying, much of it is offensively oversimplified and arrogant. It is not so black and white.
Labeling everything stigmatized as "pseudoscience" as harmful is just as bad as adamantly believing anything with "chemicals" in it is harmful, and using that word as a scare tactic, for example.
+mysteriouswolven That's what I thought... Her way of talking is scary...
+mysteriouswolven It sounds more like "Here are people who are doing things wrong and here's what they look like" rather than "We have an existing problem, let's go about fixing it."
+Francisco Florimon There is an app called Bedtime Math.
You ought to know.
It's ironic actually, how she mentioned Steve Jobs as a good example, and yet he was into what she may call "pseudoscience".
And also, if it wasn't for the first scientists believing in what it was thought to be pseudoscience, we wouldn't have the science we have today.
I wish I felt like I was good at engineering, I just have trouble thinking 3 dimensional, and I can't think realistically, I use my imagination to think, which means that I will always get the best picture of the final product in my head, not how to get there.
I thought it said " I don't do meth"...
LOL
How desperately did these things need to be said.... ❤ What a Queen.
Well, trying to be a stem literate guy ..i couldnt find a relation between the topic "i dont do math" & "stem literate" speach.
Ajay Ramachandran Yea, the title is a bit misleading. Sorry about that!
Emily Calandrelli that being said , it was indeed a great speach & an idea worth sharing :).Its Good to know that you're using your clear voice & percise words to lighten up the concept of stem literacy among people. keep up the good work & all the very best 👍
So temperatures have gone up by an entire .8 degrees Celsius over the last century, so and were supposed to pay more for electricity?
This needs to become mandatory viewing for the public!
I've never once heard anyone say, "I don't do math." I've heard lots of people say they don't read.
Gorgeous girl.
she's HOT! I want her to be MY math teacher ;)
I agree with her about the knowledge all of us should have in topics like those. But imagine if that were as she wants, we should know about history, architecture, literature, all types of art, design, psychology etcetera. And i know what some people could tell, there are some more relevant which is false.(I will explain).The point is that even if you would want people to know more about everything in the end that's not going to work, first because everybody is free to think whatever they want and second because everybody is free to teach what they consider true. Its not about encouraging people to be more aware because most of the times they wont do. In publicity and graphic design we see the people's thoughts as something we can fix, erase, create, so there are things too complex like human behavior that can only be treated delicately, part by part, dont pretend everyone is going to share your thoughts, thats why there are careers related to communication. Yes, maths exist, physics exist, and yes not all of us know well which stuff are involved, but economics exist, communication and design exist and so not all of us know what they are about, but we never talk about how we see those careers in comparison to the related to maths, most of the time they are seen as not so important to solve problems when actually they can change minds better than maths. Thanks
Wait, wait, wait! In all you said here you disproved so much things that are actually right. Also from all you said here what is left in my mind is "Think the way I tell you to", not "Get more curious and educated", which is what I think you wanted to say. I really like your idea, but I really cannot like what you said in this TED talk.
Exactly !
This is something I feel strongly about as well. Great talk!
I can't do Emily Calandrelli.
Deipatrous Oh but I can ;)
nice. lol
Lol
Emily Calandrelli for President!
I consider myself STEM literate. I'm an electrical engineer with a bachelor's and a master's degree. When it comes to the various topics that Ms. Calandrelli brought up, it sounds like she is saying that if we don't agree with her on these topics, then we are STEM illiterate. Perhaps she is right. As an electrical engineer, I don't pretend to know much at all about climate change - much less whether or not climate change is caused by humans. But it sounds like if you just believe what the "scientists" are saying about climate change, then Ms. Calandrelli will say you are STEM-literate, whether you actually understand the issues that the scientists are talking about. On the other hand, if you refuse to make up your mind until you have been convinced by clear and convincing evidence, then we are somehow STEM-illiterate?
In this video, Ms. Calandrelli presents virtually no actual science. Rather, this sounds more like partisan politics. "If you are not a Democrat, then you must be a stupid, STEM-illiterate ignoramus." Maybe we're merely skeptical, Ms. Calandrelli. Maybe....
Dan Hillman This is a copy of a reply to someone else that I made - so please forgive any parts that seem to address something you didn't actually say. I think, however, it does answer your basic question...
While what you say is strictly true, what she is really discussing is people who deny science, not those who are skeptical. And they deny because they are not 'STEM literate'. In her definition, STEM literate does not mean you have done the research and come to your own conclusions - because in order to do that for virtually every possible subject would be impossible for a single human being to do. You, for example, cannot possibly verify the research and conclusions (theories) in cosmology, physics (all of its branches), anthropology, physiology, biology, computer science, etc., etc,, etc.
So, what she is REALLY saying is that if you are STEM literate (you have critical thinking skills and a rudimentary understanding of the Scientific Method), you can presume that when the majority of those who specialize in a particular scientific discipline agree - that they are most likely correct, and you should probably listen to them. She is not saying 'blind acceptance'. In fact, considering that there is likely much more money to be gained (through grants, awards and talks) for someone who is able to disprove an existing widely accepted theory, there is great likelihood that at least one individual who has a great deal of knowledge in the field is working very hard to disprove at least one or more of the accepted theories. After all, this is precisely why knowledge and technology has advanced so fast over the past few hundred years. Seriously - think about it.
Now, I understand what you are trying to say - but the problem is that those who are actually not* STEM literate will almost certainly interpret your 'well said' statement as 'proof' that their denial is actually just 'healthy skepticism' and it is the 98% of climate scientists (for example) who need to work harder to prove their theory.
+Renegades Water Polo Club Psychoanalysis and Ecology at the edge of Chaos by Joseph Dodds explains the positions both of you have taken. Is STEM an acronym for Scientific Thinking Emotional Method? Just kidding. I belong to a group on Facebook of people doing research at the South Pole. Old Antarctic Explorers. My Dad went with Admiral Byrd in 1946 to Antarctica.
+Dan Hillman I think the point was to be anti-pseudoscientific.
I think the bigger point was that she engaged in partisan shaming, while ignoring the faults or her own party.
Dan Hillman It makes no sense for that to be her point. That's your point, not hers!
“There are more things on heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
Tittle is miselading
Only if you bring your own assumptions to the talk. To be honest, I also thought she was going to go elsewhere with the talk, but I can see the connection now.
Hodgepodge Mama well yeah i guess that true
***** Yea, sorry about that! :)
Emily Calandrelli I get why you titled your talk that way. I like how you covered everything. I have said this phrase with such pride. It is embarrassing I did. I love how you explained all your points. I am constantly trying to change my thoughts on math and STEM literacy is a great way to lead people to understand what is going on in our daily lives. GREAT TALK! Let's do this! I will be promoting this until its changed.
Thanks Victoria!!
She makes a good point on the general population not being STEM literate enough, but she neglects the fact that the current world (and Congress) runs on economic gains. Those men making decisions in leading environmental institutes are most likely prioritizing immediate economic gains (for themselves, their countries, fellow 1%ers) over the longer term environmental impact on humanity. The most effective way to look out for the future of humanity is not for people to be more STEM literate, but for technology advances to be aligned with economic gains.
I am literate enough to know this chick is cute ^^
Tru
She quickly went from an objective definition of "STEM LITERATE" to promoting her own conclusions about climate change, vaccines, etc. She uses her pre-defined illustrations of "STEM LITERACY" to actually patronize those who might disagree with her. She then goes on to turn the whole concept into political activist platforms to promote certain global and governmental agendas that she, herself, isn't very "stem literate" about. Amazing!
These are clear cut scientific issues, and the only reason they are political issues as well is politically motivated denial of the evidence.
her point is, I think, that if you are not STEM literate, you will fall prey to snake oil salesmen. If you are stem literate, you won't buy into homeopathy, superfoods, climate change denial, moon landing hoax theories, detox diets and so on.
Thats a "BAM" in the faces of people saying "UH mathematics are just ugly and nerds!"
There are so many things wrong with that sentence.
She looks like a robot look how she moves her head. Prolly on some mk ultra shit.
I love TED Talk, but I keep getting distracted by how attractive she is....
+Sonny Zheng Maybe try noticing that she has more to offer than being aesthetically pleasing for you.
then only listen... ;)
+nidkidwonderboy Then read the transcript. If you cannot function mentally, figure out how to be smarter.
it doesn't make him bad. He didn't say anything rude, relax.
I do math, that's why I can think critically about the world! If you don't do math, you'll never be able to make good decisions, and you won't understand the scientific method!
Finally. We need more people like her.
Still don't understand math and I'm proud to say that I passed honors math and AP stat classes in high school simply by guessing and cheating on tests.
Articulated so well what I've thought for a while. One point of contention though. There hasn't been enough funding to do the extensive research necessary to truly and objectively determine which alternative medicine practices can be beneficial. You can't argue with personal experience. I think yoga used to be considered too "out there", yet now its everywhere because of its various physical and mental health benefits.
Hodgepodge Mama I think this is an important point. There are certainly many areas where there is not an "overwhelming body of scientific evidence" as I put it. And you're right, funding is a huge bottle neck for these issues.
Actually "personal experience" is the single greatest thing anyone should be skeptical of.. especially your own. For example, someone suffers from some non-specific "achy-painy" type of medical symptom that comes and goes. Their primary care physician can't quite pinpoint yet what it might be, but needs to try to make sure it's not a beginning symptom of something worse. So while doing a series of test, the person also starts trying every alt-medicine claim from every one of their friends, family, coworkers that "Worked for them" in trying to get some relief. They try herbal teas, homeopathy, acupuncture, crystals, etc. One after one, their "personal experience" shows them that each of these in fact DON'T work. Until, suddenly, one day they try some magnetic wrist band.. and then suddenly the next day the "achy-pains" they had been experiencing are gone (again.. assuming it's not the symptom of a deeper chronic problem).
Did the magnetic wrist band actually work? No.. there's no evidence that magnetism effects your health (good or bad) in any way. What happened is the person experienced "regression to the mean". They had been suffering from these non-specific aches and pains which are very difficult to nail down the cause. However if it's not a chronic symptom of something that will keep getting worse.. the pains will go away. You don't have a headache forever unless it's a symptom of something much worse.. your headache will go away on it's own. They experience some aches and pains, then it gets better, then it gets worse, then it gets better. So what happened, is in desperation when they were experiencing the pain at it's worst, the last thing they try before it naturally gets better, they attribute through their own "personal experience" that it worked. When in fact it was just the last thing they tried before it got better on it's own.
But now they have it in their head that magnetic wrist bands "work", and every time they get an "achy painy" type of non-specific symptom.. they will again try the magnetic wrist bands. Now here is the interesting part. From here on out, every time the wrist bands DON'T work, they will forget that it didn't work. But every time their body regresses to the mean and the aches and pains go away, that will further confirm to them that magnetic wrist bands work. They now have a personal experience that magnetic wrist bands work, and will further have continued confirmation bias to reinforce that it works.
Once a person goes down this line of thinking, it's almost impossible to convince them otherwise. Because their line of thinking basically goes "I don't care about your double blinded placebo controlled peer reviewed replicated studies that show it doesn't work.. I know from personal experience that IT WORKED FOR ME!" And this is dangerous because what now if it IS a symptom of a much worse chronic condition so they don't go get the tests the doctor wanted, that would have found the root problem at an earlier, more easily treated stage. Now it might not be found until it's too late, and what once was treatable, is now terminal.
It's important for us all to learn how our brains work, and how they can be fooled. We all need to learn what is good evidence, and what is not. We need to learn about logical fallacies and biases. We need to learn to follow logic, reason and evidence to their natural conclusion, and be humble and realize that anything one thinks they know, could be wrong, even one's most closely held beliefs. We need to learn to change our minds, when presented with new evidence. We need to learn that in order to find the truth, we need to try everything we can to prove anything we believe FALSE, because only when we CAN NOT prove our beliefs false, can we say that we are getting closer and closer to a firm understanding of what is actually true and real.
Misha H "Personal experience is one of the worst ways of telling truth from fiction." I beg to differ. Pain and comfort are strictly personal experiences, and only I know if something makes me feel better or worse. Objective medicine may claim that something is supposed to make me feel a certain way, but only I can confirm if it does or doesn't. And this is just one example. Why are there ever exceptions to scientific expectations? So-called "miraculous" cures? Subjectivity has gotten a bad rap, but I believe both objectivity and subjectivity have their place in medicine.
Misha H What is truth? What is real? Interesting that you mention herbal tea and acupuncture - both "alternative medicine" that I have used with great success. Perhaps the placebo affect is at play, but that's the point - it doesn't matter why or how something works, only that it does.
Hodgepodge Mama
It doesn't matter why or how something works, only that it does??? Well.. except when it doesn't work. You may "think" that acupuncture "works".. and yet you admit that it may jsut be placebo. Let me tell you that any benefit that you got from acupuncture is purely placebo. The best controlled double blinded studies of acupuncture showed that it didn't matter who was giving the patient the acupuncture (an "acupuncturist" or just a joe off the street), it didn't matter where the needles were placed, and it didn't even matter if they were actually needles at all.. or just toothpicks poking the skin.
So let's see. Doesn't matter if it's a trained "acupuncturist" or your 80 year old grandma. Doesn't matter where they stick you at. And it doesn't even matter if it's a needle piercing the skin or just a toothpick poking at you.. the effect was the same in all situations... which was minimal. I would say that's pretty clear that any minor effect at all is pure placebo.
And doesn't matter huh? Well.. what about those that think that ground up rhino horns has some type of "magical" healing properties? Which it doesn't. But because people "believe" that it works, poachers are hunting them towards extinction. What about shark fins (same thing)? Oh.. and I'm sure that acupuncture was charging you money? I don't know about you, but I sure would like to know that whatever I'm paying for.. is actually going to do something.. beyond just placebo.
Oh.. and then what about people who forgo science based medicine treatments that are proven to work and in stead try some flaky "alt medicine" instead? I'm sure Steve Jobs would have preferred to use the actual proven medical treatment where he would have had a high percentage chance of still being alive, rather than the "alt medicine" herbal tea type garbage he "read off the internet".
Ever wonder why alternative medicine pretty much always claims to treat the loosy-goosy-ache-and-pain kind of aliments? It's because those are the symptoms that are very hard to pin down, they usually come and go, and so forth.. and are very subjective in what the person claims. IE.. there's no easy way to measure how much "achy-painy" someone is feeling accept asking them to "self-report". "Self-reported" feelings is not data. And achy-pains tend to come and go on their own... which is why alt-medicine prays on that feature to persuade people that the alt-treatment "works". At best.. you are getting placebo, most of the time you are getting nothing, and at worse you are getting something that will cause more harm.
Unless one understands "regression to the mean", one is always at risk for confirmation bias that some alt-medicine "works".
Again.. there is only two types of medicine/treatments. Those that have been proven to work, and those that have been proven not to work. Do you know that they call "alt-medicine" that has been proven to work? It's called medicine.
Also ever wonder why we don't have "alt-physics"? Or "alt-math"? Or "western" vs "eastern" physics? Then why is there an "alt-medicine"? Shouldn't there just be medicine that has been proven to work? And "it worked for me" personal experience is not evidence.
But don't take my word for it. Do your own research. However, I know you can find tons of "personal experience" that acupuncture (or whatever alt-medicine claim) "worked" for someone. I could probably find 100 people who claim (and honestly believe) that they were abducted by aliens last night. But I would wager that you wouldn't actually believe them. You can also find the entities trying to sell you the stuff that claiming that it works. And you can read all that and go.. "See.. it works!". No.. you actually have to read the information on the OTHER side. You have to read all of the published and peer reviewed papers on acupuncture. Not one.. not two.. but several. If any report a possible benefit, then read the peer-reviewed comments on that study. Read Science Based Medicene blog... find other sources that conflict with your belief and actually read the information and studies and papers and such that conflict with your belief. Then decide if you still believe that "it works". And if so.. then do your own double blinded placebo controlled study, get it published, then peer reviewed and replicated. Then we will see if you can actually prove that it works.
i used to say stuff like i dont do math, now i say i dont do algebra, because i just dont get it, but geometry just clicks for me, maybe it had to do with my artistic upbringing and being (i feel like this is rare in young artists)fascinated with composition, which is very abstract. but i always loved science cause it was about real stuff, and history was about real stuff from the past(what happened, not just what date it happened), i liked all that stuff.
what i hate is all this focus on academics, like abstract academics that we learned when we were young but people think they need to keep pounding in us our whole lives. why cant we get on to the cool stuff, lets say cars, im not a huge car person but i know that a lot of people are, lets learn about how they work, thatd be cool right? lets learn about that stuff in the real world and the past that inspires all these fictional things that we watch and read and play.
i really am just so tired of taking basically algebra every year till middle school, then in middle school taking it again and then maybe finally moving on to geometry(couldnt cause i such at algebra, gg) then you have to take algebra again in high school(and then algebra 2 i think, aside from the class i had to take becuse i didnt pass some math test so they gave me another class). and then you go on to college and, whats this? why wouldnt you have to take algebra again after the 10 algebra classes you took before during every single school year previous. its no wonder im apathetic to math, i was so happy that i understood geometry, there may have been some sick selfish enjoyment sometimes when i was the first one to get a question in geometry while everyone else who had previously been all great in algebra was strugling.
not to mention writing the same lame essays year after year(especially "what did you do over your summer?" cause you know what i did? i sat at home im an introvert, i drew, read, and played video games.) learning the same grammar rules the same vocabulary, what a surprize i started to not enjoy writing because it was time consuming(and of course i had to wright with my absolutely terrible, heavy handed, slow, handwriting)(at least my spelling was good back then, i do acknowledge that my spelling is bad, but im not looking at what im writing and i type faster than i am good at, its not like i practiced). im more interested in say.. descriptive language and poetry(not so much the poetry that they presented to us... well probobly every year i guess that some years my english teacher didnt go).
that was a rant no one needed to read, but if i deleated this i would feel a sense of loss and dissapointment.
WadMizard ZOL I think you made many valid points, and I thank you for sharing them.
On a lighter note, I think you could have done with a few more grammar lessons (e.g., proper capitalization and punctuation). LOL
Seriously, though, thank you for sharing, because I know some of my sisters went through this same line of thought. I'm more scientifically-minded, so I hated social studies (particularly history) while going through middle school and most of high school. Now, I love it (particularly Middle Ages, Ancient Rome, and the foundations of the American Republic form of government), but I didn't really get much out of it while in school because it was - as you said - writing the same lame essays or studying the same years and dates. None of it was in proper context... until I got to college and was playing Civilization. Then, the timeline - how one led to the other - made MUCH more sense.
My advice is to just find some topics that interest you, and then see what the other academic fields have to say about that topic. For example, if you like poetry, you can see what mathematics has to say about meter and rhyme schemes (e.g., 2 couplets where the 1st and 3rd lines rhyme and the 2nd and 4th rhyme is denoted as an ABAB rhyme scheme - that's a form of algebra!); you could study what neuroscience and psychology has to say about the effect of certain types of poetry on the brain (including forms of music, from romantic ballads to rap to rage metal); you could research the history of how different cultures, civilizations, and nations promoted or even commissioned poets (from Virgil and Ovid to the medieval bards to Nobel Prizes for poetry). Almost every field has something to say about almost every topic because that's just how human beings are - we are all "Renaissance Men" at heart, with many more interests than simply "what we're good at".
Enjoy life!
***** While i'm not sure about the ins and outs of grammar, its really that in commenting online i type faster than i am good at; also i leave my i's uncapitalized because i like to think i'm being humble(even when i'm not being lazy).
i always liked ancient civilizations, i guess it was as close to fantasy as i would get back when i "only liked real stuff"(maybe cause everyone else didn't idk, i was like that a lot when i was younger); though despite that i still loved mythology. whenever the modern wars(like civil war onward, wars with guns really) come up though i am just uninterested, they seem so grey whereas old civilizations seem so intriguing.(also i swords seemed so much cooler than guns to me, not if this is a cause, effect, or simply a coincidence)
i am going to be a game designer some day, so it makes me feel good to see you mention a video game in such a context.
WadMizard ZOL Yea. I know tons of kids that do great in Geometry but used to suck in last years algebra. I am great in both but that's just me.
What happens when 95% of scientific research turns out to be wrong, though?
Excellent Talk.... for those that Get It.... but, as I'm sure the Presenter knows, it's difficult to change the minds of those that Don't....
Came for the girl, stay for the info (and the girl)
My stem literacy tells me that the gravity on the tedx stage is over 9000 m/s². Great talk though
title spelled "meth" wrong
Omfg
ON "OH, IM NOT A SCIENTIST..." THE TRUTH IS, IF YOU AREN'T WILLING TO LEARN SOMETHING YOURSELF, YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO TRUST THOSE WHO KNOW.
Kenneth Roberts That trust has to be earned. Anyone who is granted a trust must demonstrate himself to be trustworthy. Trust and respect are to be earned; not given. The burden here is on the person who wants to be trusted. Unless you are God, demanding that people trust you is insensitive, obnoxious, and more than a little bit creepy. There is little that a person can say that will cause me to distrust them more than the words, "Trust me." And it doesn't help when the person saying, "Trust me" has a smug, condescending attitude and consistently sets up and then knocks down straw man arguments to make her political opponents look stupid.
Kenneth Roberts No, you simply have to know how to review references and recognize what 'peer reviewed' means. Then trust is not really the issue at that point.
Renegades Water Polo Club I agreed, I just find that there are many individuals who are just unwilling to learn, and call out the people doing the actual work, as if they are wrong.
Kenneth Roberts Ah. I misread your comments - my mistake!
Marry me.
STEM literacy is a useless word. It basically means thinking objectively. Calandrelli just says if you agree with scientists or popular opinions labeled as "scientific" you are STEM literate. No, you aren't. Just how you aren't objective. You still have to be skeptic, gather facts, and understand and even in this case you can't say you know the absolute truth. Neither the scientists can say this. In the best case they just have the most logical explanation (at the moment). Calandrelli talks about controversial topics like she knows the (of course STEM literate) truth, showing that if you are STEM literate on a topic, you know what is the "truth". This is just plain wrong. This has nothing to do with objectivity, or "STEM literacy" if you want to use a fancy word.
+Pata Tamás It's not possible to know everything about everything. STEM literacy includes knowing when to accept the opinion of someone better educated in a field than you are, and how to judge whether their opinion makes sense.
Damn that was good
If I may, and with great respect: I find the talk to be off topic.
I agree with Ms Candrelli: I have found that in most STEM related subjects common sense helps. Evolution, for instance, makes sense. And the theory is supportedby an overwhelming body of evidence.
I use common sense and try to keep informed, by consulting authoritative sources. Sources that, unlike me, have scientific training. In a way, my approach is similar to that of President Obama's as described by Ms Candrelli.
But I can't do maths. And since this is the title of the talk I had hoped that it would be the subject, but Ms Candrelli simply doesn't mention that M in STEM!
1+1=2
No it equals 237732881
I believe that if more Stem literate people were also Humanities literate the world would be a much better place. The opposite is true as well, obviously, but I feel like Stem educated people don't need to be reminded of it, considering how high on their pedestral they are.
I blame religions for make people "proud" on their own ignorance.
U r right..
+sedeslav Then you have a problem with all culture. How many people in the Bible weighed food? How many people measured as carpenters? Who built the pyramids? Medical doctors are telling patients to guess portions and you ignore this and tell us that with all the precise measurements in the Bible, with Noah, Joseph, the Wilderness, carpentry and Jesus that STEM is not to be found in the Bible? Look again perhaps.
+Charlotte Fairchild
The building of the pyramids has absolutely nothing to do with the Bible; quite possibly nothing to do with religion as well, but from man's need and desire to locate himself in the universe.
+Ahmose Reigns The pyramids were built by a race between 400 and 500 years way before Christ. The Hebrews built the pyramids as slaves. This is in the Bible. It is one of the character building "jobs" in the Bible for the Hebrew people. The math in the building of the pyramids were exceptional. The weighing of food kept people from eating too much during plenty and from cannibalism during famine. The math is involved in pyramids, weight/measurement, time, and is written about in the ancient words of the Bible, older than the Quran. There are older books/writings. Yet this book we call the Bible is known by many more people than the other books. Perhaps the narcissistic men who needed a pyramid to be buried in located themselves in the universe as more important than anyone else since people need a higher power.
+Charlotte Fairchild
A. "The pyramids were built by a race between 400 and 500 years way before Christ."
That sentence makes no sense whatsoever. Are you saying 1) 'It took anywhere from 400 to 500 years to build the pyramids, and 2) it was way before Christ'? Or, are you saying 'the pyramids were built 400 to 500 years before Christ'? Which one is it, because these are two different statements and either one could be inferred from what you inarticulately preposed. I can't even lucidly respond until I first make sense of what it is you're attempting to say.
B. "The Hebrews built the pyramids as slaves. This is in the Bible. It is one of the character building "jobs" in the Bible for the Hebrew people."
Apparently you're archaeologically illiterate as that particular science of the humanities determined a long time ago that the Egyptian pyramids were not built by slaves, Hebrew or otherwise:
1. "the pyramids were not built by slaves or foreigners"
The Pyramid Builders,
National Geographic Magazine
by Virginia Morell (American journalist and author who writes for the Smithsonian, Science and National Geographic magazines)
ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/data/2001/11/01/html/ft_20011101.5.fulltext.html
2. "Pharaoh Khufu, second ruler of the fourth dynasty, constructed the Great Pyramid. Herodotus reported that Khufu enslaved thousands of people in order to build his huge pyramid, but he was later proven incorrect. National Geographic reports, "Excavated skeletons show that they [pyramid workers] were Egyptians who lived in villages developed and overseen by the pharaoh's supervisors." Pharaoh Khafre was the son of Khufu. He built the Pyramid of Khafre and many statues, including the famous statue of the Sphinx. Pharaoh Menkaure, sixth ruler of the fourth dynasty, died before his pyramid's completion. Shepseskaf, his heir, finished it in 2490 B.C."
traveltips.usatoday.com/great-pyramids-giza-1205.html
3. "National Geographic indicates that archaeologists estimate that 20,000 to 30,000 Egyptians built the pyramids at Giza over the course of 80 years. To construct the pyramids, first priests and astronomers determined the correct position for the pyramid. Architects used ropes to guide the shape from the corners to the pinnacle. Then workers hauled huge blocks of limestone up ramps. The Encyclopedia Smithsonian indicates that Egyptian workers used copper tools to sculpt the rock, “Egyptians had copper tools such as chisels, drills and saws that may have been used to cut the relatively soft stone.” The names of workers and their work groups were chiseled into some of the stones of the pyramids. National Geographic notes, "Graffiti indicates that at least some of these workers took pride in their work, calling their teams 'Friends of Khufu,' 'Drunkards of Menkaure,' and so on-names indicating allegiances to pharaohs."
traveltips.usatoday.com/great-pyramids-giza-1205.html
Sorry Grandma, Hebrews HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BUILDING OF THE PYRAMIDS OF EGYPT.
Until you get your facts straight and can articulate what you'd like to say in a comprehensive manner, I really don't think it's even necessary to address anything else you more than likely got incorrect.
PS. Oh, and one last thing… the Great Pyramid of Egypt was built c. 2580-2560 BC… no Hebrew existed anywhere on planet earth at that period. Abraham, the first Hebrew, according to the published Bible timeline, does not even make it to Egypt until 2091 BC (biblehub.com/timeline/ ) that's almost 500 YEARS AFTER the pyramids were already built. I guess they don't teach people how to count in Sunday school, only the pastor can count, all of the money in the collection plate, because the congregation certainly can't count, not if they actually believe 'Hebrews built pyramids in Egypt'. That's like saying President Bill Clinton shook hands with Christopher Columbus; umm a 500 year difference says, no, I don't think so.
C. "The math in the building of the pyramids were exceptional. The weighing of food kept people from eating too much during plenty and from cannibalism during famine. The math is involved in pyramids, weight/measurement, time, and is written about in the ancient words of the Bible, older than the Quran. There are older books/writings. Yet this book we call the Bible is known by many more people than the other books."
The math of pyramids is the result of the scholar priests of ancient Egypt, not Hebrews or anyone else. If the Bible mentions it, big deal, the Bible didn't create it, nor did anyone who took credit for writing it, nor anyone who was given credit for writing it. Reporting on something someone else did doesn't imbue you with their credit. Sports writers don't get credit for home runs and touchdowns that were made by other people.
D. "Perhaps the narcissistic men who needed a pyramid to be buried in located themselves in the universe as more important than anyone else since people need a higher power."
Perhaps your own narcissism induces you to pronounce judgement on a culture and civilization you are apparently ignorant about (your statements prove it, all of them). Number two, it was never said that it was the kings who were seeking to locate their very own person in the universe, but that the construction was undertaken as national projects for the benefit of the state; without that effort modern astronomy would not even exist.
I absolutely loved the speech! I thought you'd get into the topic of women not wanting to pursue STEM careers, but the truth is this may be even more important. You are a great example of what the STEM community should be like when communicating to the general public and are doing a lot of good. Keep it up!
Thanks so much Pablo! Women in STEM is another very important topic, but that speech will be for another time :)
Wer flying in space at high speeds around a fireball, If I want to smoke I'll smoke thank you.
it is not a fireball but Ok
"I can't do math." Is the confidence in being able to correctly identify a profound deficit after being forced to listen to instruction that didn't make sense likely K-12. As an English speaker, how well could you learn math if the instruction was exclusively in a language you didn't know? Seriously, Celebrate the self expression "I can't do math" as a cathartic & constructive statement after being in a very bad (Mathematical) relationship K-12.
I can do math, but I'm a little distracted by the short skirt though...
+CzechRiot IMHO If somebody would like to be him/herself taken seriously especially in a scientific environment, he/she should dress accordingly.
In other words: you want their minds attention not their other parts...
+CzechRiot Read the transcript if you cannot turn off your baser thoughts.
Charlotte Fairchild It's ok, different heads can focus on each item.
Not funny.
not a riot, but a little funny...
Her call for us to be STEM-literate is great, but a lot of the examples used actually damage her argument and alienate certain listeners because she is insisting we believe what she believes... rather than, well, truly being STEM-literate, thinking critically, and considering all factors (including our personal values and belief systems), to come up with an informed decision of our own. Personal values and beliefs DO matter-- you can't just "blindly" believe something because research/statistics "say so." There are a lot of politics and hidden motives involved in popular STEM topics-- To name one: Cancer?
And sometimes a topic hasn't been researched for long enough to have conclusive results. We live in a world where we are constantly learning new information, new research is being done, etc. Yes, STEM-literacy is so important. But this is the first TED talk I've heard where I felt like someone was pushing their own beliefs onto me.
wtf? title is totally misleading...
I’m angry: Ms Calandrelli is grossly unfair when she says people seem proud about not being able to do maths.This is a sweeping statement. It leaves out all those who say they can’t do maths and are NOT proud of it.
I can't do maths. I’m neither proud nor ashamed: I’m simply stating it as fact.
She says people don’t say “I can’t read”: by saying this she reveals her ignorance. Because math is is the only subject that provokes this reaction with people. Maths is quite simply a unique subject that calls for a very different kind of reasoning.
STEM literacy is important. The problem is that the S, T, and E all depend to some extent on M. My level in maths has been assessed: it is equivalent to that of an eight or nine year old. So my M is practically non-existent, so my understanding of S, T, and E will be very limited.
I do like her knees...
Cal d'Arion RULE 34
lol I'm a student at Purdue University and just went to dinner with her after her talk!
Great job! It's like hearing my own thoughts on these matters. I agree with everything said. Now could you do it all again using the Canadian government... Lol
Thank you so much!
I'm no scientist, but I did my research to find out what they had to say in Evolution.
I'm much more into the physical sciences and math, so I learned a little about the Biological sciences.
One of the arguments I actually get when debating Evolutionists is them saying "You're not a scientist so you have no authority to disagree with them."
Not true, I can learn and understand what they have to say and it really doesn't take a scientist to understand that Evolution is false. It's actually really easy to refute it.
John C plus evolution is not proven
Rolf Leseratz It isn't
It is a theory which cannot be proven
Rolf Leseratz it ISN'T proven
Rolf Leseratz Evolution isn't PROVEN
Rolf Leseratz It isn't proven
Like Barbie said "Math class is tough!
MathBarbie!
I got up to 5:08
everyone should be keenly aware that the 95% claim has been discredited.
I agree with almost all of what you said. It makes me cringe when people announce that they don't do numbers. But really my concern isn't as much that they ignore what has been scientifically proven but that they never actually look into it at all. In some cases they believe what science has "proven" or at least what they have been told has been proven without looking at the entire body of evidence in a logical way.
This brings me to the evolution topic, It is generally accepted that we have evolved from apes, however it has not been proven. In this matter, logically looking at the science of what is known and what isn't about the origin of the world leads to one conclusion, we are all people of faith. You either have faith in the evolution of species from slime that appeared out of nothingness or you have faith that you were created by a God.
If people would only allow their minds to be open to any logical possibility and then follow those possibilities to a conclusion based on evidence, the world truly would be a better place.
DCARA06 evolution was proven and there are thousands and thousands of pieces of evidence, read books about it, visit a science museum (not the creationist museum in Kentucky)...
David Caplette Thanks I have a science degree major in Biology. I have read many books, journals, etc. on evolution and no it is not proven, not by a very long shot.....long as in eternally long shot.
DCARA06 good, I will not argue with you here, but I definitely think that you are absolutely wrong.
David Caplette not proven - it has only been stated as a theory, and it does (for the most part) make sense.
Even the popes have acknowledged evolution may be a valid theory.
Saying it's proven implies that the results have been reproduced (which, obviously, would take millions of years, according to the theory). There is some supporting evidence, but no definitive proof, and more importantly, no way of predicting what comes next.
Think, if you will, about another example: the Newtonian model of gravity and the solar system. The theory of gravity - as proposed by Newton - was good and explained many things. But it had flaws. It could predict *most* planetary motions, but there were some that it couldn't explain (e.g., the precession of Mercury). That's why it's called the "theory" of gravity: it wasn't perfect, it wasn't proven definitively, and nobody understood how or why it worked.
Then Einstein came along with his theory of General Relativity, and that not only encompassed Newton's theory of gravity, but also gave an explanation for the flaws in Newton's theory. And Einstein was able to predict what would happen by observing light bending around the Sun during a solar eclipse, he could more accurately predict the orbital path of Mercury, and many other things besides (e.g., the possibility of black holes).
The current theory of evolution does not yet have such a pedigree (and it is doubtful it ever will, due to the time scales involved).
P.S. I am no "young Earther" either. There are more flaws in those theories - which are shaped to fit the narrative of poetic language contained in the first chapter of Genesis - than in the current theories of geology and evolution. But the wrongness of one theory does not instantly give absolute credibility to a competing theory. Both can be wrong (to varying - or the same - degree, depending on the specific piece of evidence being examined).
DCARA06 The problem you are displaying is that you do not understand what science is all about. Science does not 'prove' things to be 100% certain. What it does is make suggestions about what *seems* to be the truth and then uses continuous testing and observation to hone in on it better. In other words, as far as the Scientific Method is concerned, the only thing considered absolutely 'true' is a self-evident truth - otherwise known as a fact. A theory is simply a 'best possible explanation' for something that is not self-evident. It is never considered 100% certain.
However, the more it is tested, the more certain its 'truth' is considered. The theories that have been tested the most, and passed every test, are often considered 'fact' by the layperson - but they are not. Take evolution. The theory has been modified over time to account for errors/mistakes in the theory - however, because it is so 'controversial' for many, it has become one of the most well tested theories in all of science. It has also been used to predict the characteristics of intermediate species whose fossils have not yet been found - and in numerous cases those predictions have been proven true when new fossils have been discovered. In addition, the recent science of DNA analysis has provided one of the most convincing 'proofs' that evolution is, in fact, an extremely accurate theory.
Your so-called 'reasoning' that uses human ignorance as a basis of 'proof' by stating that 'people have faith' in evolution shows an astounding lack of understanding about both the theory and science in general. Hence, you are one of the poster children for the dangerous type of thinking that Emily discusses in this video. However, given the tone of your reply, wherein you seem absolutely certain of the 'truth' of your ignorance, I doubt that even this explanation will penetrate very far into your wall of denial.
Brava! Outstanding! Fight STEM-illiteracy!
When someone says "I don't do math" what I *hear* is "I don't know how to think."
Also very impressed how Ms Calandrelli stood still and spoke for 16 minutes without having to pace around like a caged animal with ADD. Very centered, which makes the talk all the more compelling.
Somebody chooses to interpret data differently, they must be illiterate? The only illiterate person here is the speaker, who is clearly illiterate when it comes to understanding diversity of opinion and thought.
All scientists are like that. My way is the highway. She mentioned vaccines but not all the problems with that nor the sterilization vaccines that have reportedly used in Africa or the developmental retardation in children that has also been reported by pediatric doctors in the US and other countries due to the immune system being overwhelmed...
Interpreting data is also complicated and might lead to divergent conclusions wether you say the one or the other factor is responsible for your result. Knowing the theory behind the weighted factors influing on the phenomenon is primordial for a reliable interpretation. To take the example of climate change or preventing high flood events, not only the air T° and moisture, but also the soil properties (T°, infiltration capacity, water content, colour, ...) , the geodetic location, etc.. come into the game. You have to rank them and to simplify everything about them: they all are related to oneanother. Climate change is a big cable spaghetti... :D
If I work 60+ hrs a week in a shitty sweat shop factory choking on fiberglass dust then sure I got time to become STEM literate.
The topic here is good, but she's a pretty awful presenter. Waaaaaaaaay too static.
+morgengabe1 ikr
+morgengabe1 I feel like the young mommy pointed her index finger on me, blaming me for having done some shit. On the other site her intelligence and the serious look in her eyes rarely changing to a cute smile made me really enjoy watching her. @CzechRiot Wouldn't blame her sexappeal on the skirt - she will look gorgeous in business-pants, too.
I think the main problem is that we don't actually teach science in schools. We teach scientific facts. We teach science as information from authority. Information that must be memorized to get the right answer for the test. Not one lesson spends any time on how science works and we sure don't teach kids how to think scientifically.
Information from authority is the exact opposite of science. And because we teach science as information from authority kids don't have any way to judge what is true and what is not. When their Sunday School teacher tells them that humans were created by a magical being they have no idea how to tell which one is really correct.
she's a puppet
You're an idiot.
Seems like mk ultra
Love this woman.
I tell people about things like whole body vibration, and NASA's research, and doctors and physical therapists have no clue what it is. NASA is not alternative and has done research on whole body vibration helping bones. People have lost touch with cutting edge science. Heck, most people don't understand what happens when they ingest vinegar! I used to do much more math. I took physics in high school and astronomy in college. I failed algebra in high school and went to summer school. My score in math was higher than in English, so I majored in English to improve English. I married an accountant so I don't do math often except with weighing food. In the Bible, Joesph saved Egypt by measuring food during times of famine and plenty. The Health Fair website has info that weighing food is the most scientific way to prevent eating too much or too little. I meet people all the time who say they don't read. I write books so they aren't interested in any books.
Thank you Emily, an admirable effort. It is an age-old struggle between the light of the truth and the darkness of ignorance. You're stepping into the light and adding your 2¢ is appreciated. There is still a very long way to go. Be assured and take comfort that the light will eventually overcome the darkness, the willfully ignorant cannot succeed in the long term and the truth can only be denied for a time. We all have more to learn.
Never thought of Steve Jobs to related to STEM. Marketing and economy, maybe. But STEM?
She is realy on the "humans responsible for climate change" train.
Thank you from Massachusetts! You had great teachers! 📙📘📗📕📒📔