Anecdotally? About 90%

Anonymous wrote:Also a lawyer. They didn't teach us any science in law school, and most of us didn't major in biochem in undergrad, so...not sure why this befuddles you. Also wondering how long you have practiced if this befuddles you -- lots of lawyers don't even understand the law very well even after three years of studying it.

I don't expect a scientific background. But it is a field based on logic and evidence and antivaxxers are allergic to that. Of course it's mostly the low tier ambulance chasers who are antivax. A lot felt vaccine mandates were a lucrative market and they soon started believing the nonsense of their clients if they didn't already believe it.

Given DCUM's worship of education, we could determine a minimum by taking the number of college graduates in the "hard" sciences over the general population.

38% have bachelor degrees or better in the US.

Go through this table and tell me which are likely to be scientifically literate:

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d21/tables/dt21_322.10.asp

A very small percentage. I think people who don’t understand statistics (which is most people IME) or logic (also most people) are fundamentally incapable of understanding science.

Sadly I also think the majority of people don’t have any clue how much capitalism dictates scientific study. Not necessarily for any intentionally nefarious purposes, but scientists need to have their research funded, and journals like to have their publications subscribed to, and all of this means that what is being studied and what is being reported is heavily influenced by those (most likely scientifically ignorant) who control the purse strings.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not very many- 5%-15%? I think it would be possible to get an undergrad degree in this country without true scientific literacy.

It absolutely is. I'm a lawyer and I'm befuddled by the number of antivax lawyers.

Also a lawyer. They didn't teach us any science in law school, and most of us didn't major in biochem in undergrad, so...not sure why this befuddles you. Also wondering how long you have practiced if this befuddles you -- lots of lawyers don't even understand the law very well even after three years of studying it.

Anonymous wrote:Not very many- 5%-15%? I think it would be possible to get an undergrad degree in this country without true scientific literacy.

It absolutely is. I'm a lawyer and I'm befuddled by the number of antivax lawyers.

Anonymous wrote:The ones who scream the loudest about #science! tend to be the most illiterate, in my experience. No one reads the actual studies. Social media has opened my eyes to so many friends and acquaintances who always seemed really smart, but really aren’t.

No I think it's the people calling for Fauci to be prosecuted, Nuremberg style, who are the most scientifically illiterate.

Anonymous wrote:The ones who scream the loudest about #science! tend to be the most illiterate, in my experience. No one reads the actual studies. Social media has opened my eyes to so many friends and acquaintances who always seemed really smart, but really aren’t.

+1

It was funny watching the "I love science" crowd arguing with my biologist friend, who develops vaccines for a living, on social media during the pandemic.

If you can consume research well without ever having done it yourself, you are a very rare person. Statistics alone is such a challenge to understand. So I'd say very few people. A very small percentage. But we don't all need to be all that scientifically literate. We just have to be smart enough to make good decisions about what media we trust to interpret it for us.

The ones who scream the loudest about #science! tend to be the most illiterate, in my experience. No one reads the actual studies. Social media has opened my eyes to so many friends and acquaintances who always seemed really smart, but really aren’t.

Not very many- 5%-15%? I think it would be possible to get an undergrad degree in this country without true scientific literacy.

Well, how are you defining "scientifically literate"? Like, able to consume cutting edge research well when reading Nature or The Astrophysical Journal or JAMA? Or like, able to believe there is such a thing as Covid? Or something in between, like holding an ability to think critically on scientific advancement as reported in the media?

Most. Get all their science from goop

Based on Covid discussions, I’d say about 10%.

Any idea? I guess it depends on how scientific literacy is defined.