How much do you know about science topics?

[audreyh1]

11/12, I missed the magnifying glass one - should have known better but I was on a roll.

I don't see things inverted through a magnifying glass so I didn't understand that answer. That's the only one I missed too.

 

[Nodak]

12/12 here also

 

[samclem]

I don't see things inverted through a magnifying glass so I didn't understand that answer. That's the only one I missed too.

It's a little tricky. If the image of the object through the lens were projected onto a screen, it >would< be inverted (as it is inside a camera). But the diagram below shows how it works when your eye is doing the viewing:

I can only figure out how lenses will behave by stepping through how the waves behave as they hit each interface of objects with differing refractive indices.

 

[Koolau]

I can only figure out how lenses will behave by stepping through how the waves behave as they hit each interface of objects with differing refractive indices.

Heh, heh, and here I thought I was the SMART one for just memorizing (50 years ago) and remembering how lenses bend light.

 

[38Chevy454]

11/12, I missed the magnifying glass one - should have known better but I was on a roll.

Same score and miss for me, if I would have thought about it more I would have got it right.

 

[Senator]

12/12. I even got the bonus demographic questions at the end right.

I wonder how today's high school kids would do. Or maybe it doesn't matter, we can outsource all of our science needs...

 

[CaliforniaMan]

12 for 12, but if I had missed one, I would have handed in my Little Orphan Science Guy decoder ring.

I could only see what High Schoolers got from the 18-29 demographic, but it didn't look too impressive. If most folks don't get at least 11 for 12, I think our K-12 needs vast improvement. Just my opinion, of course. I see similar trends in the fields of politics (huge numbers of people don't know who the Vice President is.), Geography (many folks don't know which oceans bound the USA), Literature (most probably don't know who William Shakespeare was.), US History (Many can not identify the combatants nor have a rough idea of when the US Civil War was fought.), etc.

I fear for this nation for many reasons. It's my humble opinion that we are letting our kids down when it comes to education. Again, just an opinion as YMMV.

Dang, I am grumpy today!

I got them all too, but having a masters degree in a science, and working all my life in science or technology, (and more importantly watching Mr. Wizard every week as a child) it would have been pretty sad if I had not. But looking at the questions, I think I would have gotten them all correct right out of high school (I guess I was a nerd before it became popular).

There have always been two groups of people (okay, more than two, but for simplification...) One that finds adventure in understanding and knowledge and another that doesn't. Some kids can lie on their back in the grass or a warm summer night, look up at the stars, and see magic. Others just see stars.

The question I always ask, is how do you get people to see the magic, to see the wonders of the natural world, of history and mathematics, to be excited by learning. It seems to me that either you have it by age 8 (or earlier) or you don't. By the time you get to jr. high school and certainly by high school, if you don't have that curiosity, you will never never get it. High school is the deathbed of curiosity and learning, partly by teachers, but also by peer pressure and hormones.

I share your concerns about the state of learning in the United States. Sometimes I even think about coming out of retirement to help kids learn, but then I think about all the bureaucracy that entails, and come to my senses.

Wish I had a clue about the answer, but I don't.

 

[aaronc879]

9/12. I guessed on 3 of them and got all 3 wrong.

 

[hnzw_rui]

I got them all too, but having a masters degree in a science, and working all my life in science or technology, (and more importantly watching Mr. Wizard every week as a child) it would have been pretty sad if I had not. But looking at the questions, I think I would have gotten them all correct right out of high school (I guess I was a nerd before it became popular).

Lol, I would've done better if I had been right of high school. There were plenty of science lessons that I don't use in day to day work that I've already forgotten.

 

[Rick_Head]

the usual 12/12. Probably would have done the same when I started high-school.

 

[samclem]

Heh, heh, and here I thought I was the SMART one for just memorizing (50 years ago) and remembering how lenses bend light.

I was very lucky to have a fantastic HS physics teacher. He was an engineer and in a lucrative job, but took a teaching position to get a deferment during the Vietnam-era draft.

Market/societal forces conspired in other ways to give us great teachers in years gone by. Decades ago, women had few opportunities in industry, but teaching was open to them. We got lots of very talented teachers (at salaries well below what they would otherwise have been) due to that. I wonder if some of the educational issues we've got are because teacher's pay hasn't kept up with new realities-- of the personnel marketplace. Of course higher pay won't do anything in the absence of effective means of making good hiring and retention choices.

 

[scrabbler1]

I had to make a few good, educated guesses but got 11 of 12 right, missing only the amplitude/frequency question.

 

[NW-Bound]

12/12

Pretty easy, but I watch the Science channel!

Nah! One only has to stay at a Holiday Inn Express.

 

[devans0]

14 out of 15. I lied about my age. Seriously though, I am shocked about the score results of some of the questions. I don't consider myself anything special on science, and thought the test wasn't too hard.

 

[Texas Proud]

I am also one who though the test was not that hard... spent 15 seconds or less on every question....

I was going to comment on how everybody was scoring 12, but then saw people putting down lower numbers... so far the low is 9 (thanks for posting the real score)....

But, if someone scored 6 do we think they are going to admit it




BTW... scored 12....

 

[bingybear]

12/12

Pretty easy, but I watch the Science channel!

12/12

but no science channel here. No cable channels here either.

Now that we passed the pre-school science test... can we get a real one.

need to at least start with coupled vector differential equations as a start!

 

[ERD50]

RE: 'amplitude/height' of the sound wave:

Yes, I agree. I had to guess at what they meant to say on that one, too. But, to be charitable, I reasoned that
[spoiler-alert]

. . . by "amplitude" they could mean "amplitude of pressure", and reading it that way makes it work. It was the "least-bad" answer[/spoiler-alert]

Yes, that is why I chose it as the most correct answer. I just thought the wording was a little off, and when you have a science quiz, I think the bar should be pretty high for wording everything correctly, versus a casual article for the lay-person.

...

Regarding the pick on one question, I look up the dictionary definition of the word they use, and it says

[spoiler-alert]
Amplitude: the maximum extent of a vibration or oscillation, measured from the position of equilibrium.

An electrical wave can have an amplitude, or an optical wave, or a radio wave. It does not have to be a physical motion displacement.

[/spoiler-alert]

Hence, I do not see a problem with their choice of word.

Yes, I suppose with a little broader definition, you can think of 'amplitude' as the 'amplitude of the amount of the compression of the wave' (or would that be 'magnitude'?). But they also threw the word "height" in there - I don't see how you can assign "height" to a sound wave.

Well, it's certainly true when viewed on a oscilloscope.

Yes, but I did say you could see amplitude on a graph. But that is different than 'seeing' it on the thing itself.

I asked the DW to take the test too. ...

DW has many wonderful qualities, but an understanding (or interest) in scientific principles is not one of them. I know better than to ask, especially to ask her to explain her score.

I really hesitated on the magnifying glass. I was kinda confused which way they were looking. That was the only one I found a bit tricky. But mostly process of elimination made it clear to me, just took a little while.

As long as I'm nit-picking, I took another look and (I'll skip the 'spoiler' - just take the test!) ...

Which kind of waves are used to make and receive cellphone calls? It seemed obvious they were looking for radio waves as the answer, but if you think about it, sound waves are used as well. There is no point w/o the sound waves (not including texting). So 'sound waves' is not incorrect.

Which of these elements is needed to make nuclear energy and nuclear weapons? Again, uranium jumps out, but I'd be surprised if this complex process does not also require the use of Sodium Chloride, Nitrogen, and Carbon Dioxide somewhere along the way. So they are 'needed' as well.

emph mine...
Which of these people developed the polio vaccine? Jonas Salk is the only choice among those associated with polio, but the wording is just a little less than exact. Jonas Salk developed a polio vaccine (and was the first). But Albert Sabin also developed an oral version of the vaccine that has been used more widely.
​

Call it nit-picking, but science is about being precise, and words should be chosen carefully to mean explicitly what you are trying to convey. And scientists often do not have the 'multiple choice' option (unless you consider an infinite number of choices 'multiple choice'!)! You need to be correct, period!

-ERD50

 

[FUEGO]

12/12. I was about to say "retired engineer" and that explains why I got them all right.

Then I realized they are all basic questions that any high school grad heading to college should know.

 

[Ronstar]

10/12. Missed the magnifying glass and boiling water questions. I still think that water will boil at the same temp in Denver and LA.


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum

 

[aja8888]

My dog just took the test using barks as answers....he scored 8 out of 12.

 

[NW-Bound]

RE: 'amplitude/height' of the sound wave:

Yes, I suppose with a little broader definition, you can think of 'amplitude' as the 'amplitude of the amount of the compression of the wave' (or would that be 'magnitude'?). But they also threw the word "height" in there - I don't see how you can assign "height" to a sound wave.

-ERD50

I ran through the test pretty quick and did not even notice that they said "amplitude/height". If so, then you are correct that the word "height" should not be there.

By the way, the way I understand it is that the word "amplitude" is always used to denote the strength of a sustained oscillation which is usually sinusoidal.

"Magnitude" also describes the strength but more often of something not necessarily oscillatory, e.g. of wind gusts, solar flares, etc... The excursions here can be one-sided.

 

[audreyh1]

10/12. Missed the magnifying glass and boiling water questions. I still think that water will boil at the same temp in Denver and LA.


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum

I've experienced otherwise. Couldn't get those beans done in time in Denver!

Anybody who does serious baking has probably run across recipes where times were adjusted for altitude.

 

[NW-Bound]

Ah, it so happened that when I was up at my high-country home last week, I took the temperature of the pot I was boiling pasta in, and saw that it was in the 190's. My home is at 7,000 ft, higher than Denver.

PS. If you pull a vacuum on the water, it would boil at even below room temperature. The lower the pressure, the lower the boiling point.

 

[stepford]

Ah, it so happened that when I was up at my high-country home last week, I took the temperature of the pot I was boiling pasta in, and saw that it was in the 190's. My home is at 7,000 ft, higher than Denver.

PS. If you pull a vacuum on the water, it would boil at even below room temperature. The lower the pressure, the lower the boiling point.

which is why you really want to wear a pressure suit above 60,000 feet or so... pesky boiling blood.

 

[Telly]

I don't see things inverted through a magnifying glass so I didn't understand that answer.........

But you could if you wanted to

Looking at some text through a magnifying glass, with face held back far enough, then slowly raise the mg up away from the text. The image will grow larger, larger, then "blow up", and then will re-appear, but inverted.
The "blow-up" distance was where the rays converged to a point.

On the topic of convex lenses, I think it's odd that our brain sees the world upside-down, but we're absolutely convinced that it's right side-up