Scientific Literacy, concepts about scientific literacy

How do you define scientific literacy? How do you see scientific literacy relating to daily life?
Is there a method, questionnaire, test etc to determine the scientific literacy of a person?
Can scientific literacy be gained without going to school i.e through daily life experiences only?

You could gain it on your own, but only if you studied as if you were in school.

It really takes years to become literate in science, though the learning curve is such that each increase in knowledge adds a lot of utility.

You need both the vocabulary as well as the knowledge of systems. Each component of a science is semantically tied to many, many other components - so a strong understanding of all components is required to be literate.

I define literacy as "being able to pick up a research paper and pull meaning from it"

I don't think you can get literate by just reading wikipedia and popular science articles - though it certainly helps.

I know exactly what you are talking about. I remember first time i saw this large book and its title was Big bang. I knew exactly what that meant.

Scientific literacy brings up a lot of thorny questions. Often, attempts to address scientific literacy bring in hidden assumptions of class, race, and gender roles, as those who want to increase scientific literacy make decisions about who should know what.

If you're interested, I recommend taking a look at Stuart Allan's, Media, Risk and Science (Open University Press 2002). It's a fairly accessible look at the history of scientific ideas in the public. Dorothy Nelkin's Selling Science (Freeman and Company 1995) is a good read on the subject, too.

So what are their simple solutions? How do we increase scientific literacy without hurting anyone?

Think about what scientists do: They observe and relate. The languages
they relate with usually include Math, Physics and Chemistry as a beginning
foundation . . . and a good foundation makes their observations more
meaningful. There are those in history who are regarded as scientists who
did not have a formal education--google on Michael faraday. He received
highest honors with a limited educational background--it was said and
emphasized-- that he didn't even know calculus.

(in a way he is being described as 'not scientifically literate' because of his
limited math back ground, even though he excelled in observation and accomplishment.)

And that brings me to my point: You may function well in science, but if
you are not known to have the right background--read that college
degrees--being regarded as scientifically literate will be problematical.

Scientific literacy is the ability to understand and use the language of science.

This means you can read text or be presented complex ideas and you either understand the words/notation used or you know you don't understand and you can find out what they mean. But, in the end, you can extract understanding from presentations in the language of science. In addition you can present ideas in the language of science leading to understanding by others.

There is a huge range of literacy, and a huge range of areas of science.

Others have extended this question to include elements of:

what is a scientific mind?

What is a scientific approach?

What is scientific ability?

What is scientific thinking?

Called an IQ test? Think about it before you dismiss it outright.
Also, mensa tests, etc require understanding of scientific terms.

It depends on what aspect or to what level you are trying to ascertain literacy. Basic Science, Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Aerodynamics, Optics, Electronics, Mechanics, Physiology, Pharmecology, Astronomy, Ecology, etc etc etc (and I didn't even start with math). There are general science survey tests and specialized exams. The depths of human knowledge is deep deep deep in all areas of science. That's why it takes a PHd to even understand the current limits of human knowledge in any given area.

Generally not, unless the person self-schools. There is too much that is not accessible intuitively in a conceptual sense, and they never get exposed to the deep language. How would they see continental drift, relativity, chemical elements, atoms, electrons. Oh yea, they can watch NOVA on TV. What are the stars, why does the sunrise change NS through the year, what causes the seasons. Why does fertilizer work? Where do babies come from? (oops, never mind about that one)

Pretty minimal for most. pretty significant for those employed in technology or the sciences.

Just my opinion.

Hey 'bigguy. I pretty much agree with everyone of your statements,
but I wonder about your following:

I have three degrees all related to electrical engineering. My Bs had a lot of
stuff not directly related to the E.E. part. My Ms was intense in electronics
with some added math, but NO unrelated stuff. But then the PhD rounded out
with almost no electrical/electronics except in the thesis. Of course that is
just my experience and my degrees are over 50 years old. So I am not so
sure about your statement that I quoted.

I'm stuck with the belief that education is mainly the acquisition of a tool
box full of tools. But what matters most is what you then do with them.
For me a PhD was not a significant enhancement.

The only way is to expose people to science. You can read in "Genius" by Gleick about how Richard Feynman's father aroused scientific curiosity in his son by the observations he made and the questions he asked.

Does mandatory education in science hurt anyone? Does mandatory education in history hurt anyone? Does mandatory education hurt anyone?

Maybe that would depend on the school and the knowledge of the advisors. To me, a Phd Thesis must advance human knowledge. It must be about something never done before. In order to do that, you ideally need to understand the limits of human knowledge in that narrow segment of knowledge. Understanding that limit, and how to know what is known, is the tool provided by the Phd. (in my mind). What you do with that tool is, as you said, a different issue.