Multiple choice tests, from OUTWITTING COLLEGE PROFESSORS

What follows is an excerpt from OUTWITTING COLLEGE PROFESSORS. The whole book is equally useful, and insightful, and available from amazon, smashwords, kindle, and nook.

The Multiple Choice Test:

(1) Remember why profs give multiple choice tests.

These kinds of exams are easy to grade, so if you’re in a large class, chances are you’re in for a large number of multiple choice questions. If you walk into a large lecture hall the first day of class, then you can almost be assured that your exams will be multiple choice or some version of it, using a bubble sheet for the answers. Remember also that these exams can be a real pain in the neck to make out, so your prof is probably not particularly happy about the exam either, except to the extent that he or she doesn’t have to prepare a show just to keep you entertained and hopefully make you educated for 50 minutes. So the main objective is ease of grading and not necessarily evaluating your knowledge or understanding. A second objective is to separate students into groups based on class performance. That is, the prof needs some written evidence to support a decision to award some grade. Again, this second objective has little or nothing to do with your learning, but everything to do with your formal record in college.

(2) Remember that multiple choice tests are actually more exercises in reading than in whatever subject the class concerns.

Students tend to forget this principle, and as a result, end up losing points unnecessarily. So whatever course you’re taking, study it the same way you would a foreign language first, then deal with the subject matter itself. In other words, you have to know the words in order to understand the language. To illustrate this point, here are a couple of multiple choice questions from one of my recent exams. The subject is embryological development.

1. In Protostomia, you would expect (a) the blastopore to become the anus (b) the anus to become the blastopore (c) the mouth to become the blastopore (d) the blastopore to become the mouth (e) the mouth to develop from mesoderm.

2. In radially cleaving embryos (a) the fate of blastomeres is established in the first cell division (b) the fate of the blastopore is established by the 4-cell stage (c) the fate of blastomeres is not determined until at least after the first few cell divisions (d) the archenteron develops from mesoderm (e) none of these.

Now, here are the same questions but with the vocabulary words (foreign language of biology) replaced with gibberish:

1. In wnitlnlcy, you would expect (a) the xclapic to become the ipxhp (b) the nmnm to become the xclapic (c) the trtrtz to become the xclapic (d) the xclapic blastopore to become the trtrtz (e) the trtrtz to ghjklnm from cvbzoupwty.

2. In prritzx rucbwyx eicvbasms (a) the ewrt of hklwuciths is plknytxcvb in the first pgksl rycbnqtzx (b) the ewrt of the xclapic is plknytxcvb by the 4-pgksl wtxvnqm (c) the ewrt of hklwuciths is not etdsytpmlk until at least after the first few pgksl rycbnqtzxs (d) the tcbnsxuiqb ghjklnms from cvbzoupwty (e) none of these.

Obviously there is no way you’re going to be able to answer such questions, or even to guess intelligently, until you learn what those words mean and can use them in sentences in the same manner as does the writer of such questions.

There will be some classes in which multiple choice questions actually require that you solve a problem of some other kind in order to find the correct answer. Chemistry and physics courses are notorious for these kinds of questions. Depending on how long the exam is, such tests, and multiple choice tests in general, may place a real premium on the speed with which you work, regardless of your intelligence or preparation. This premium on speed is especially evident in large classes.

(3) Remember that often, if not usually, multiple choice questions are simply complete sentences that are either true or false.

In the above examples all you have to do is look at the introductory phrase and the answers to realize that each of the five answers, when combined with the introductory phrase, makes a complete sentence. Then all you have to decide is whether each complete sentence is either true or false (typically easier said than done). When introductory phrase + answer make a false sentence that fact is usually revealed by a key word or two.

(4) Key words are the key to answering multiple choice questions.

In the first of the above questions, “Prostomia” is the key word because the very definition of that term is choice (a). In the second of those questions, “radially” and “fate” are the two key words, leading immediately to choice (c). Even though the subject is biology in this case, the principles apply to almost every course in which multiple choice questions are given on exams. If you visit your prof after performing poorly on a multiple choice exam, chances are that he or she will pull out a copy of the exam and start through a few questions, circling key words in the process. Looking for key words is a way of learning to read such exams the same way your prof does.

(5) Try not to change correct answers to incorrect ones.

Every time I get a bubble sheet back from the graders, I see questions that students have changed from right to wrong. I’m not really sure why this change happens, but when I talk to these students, it seems like they’re trying to outguess me instead of dealing with the question itself. So my advice is to always read the question literally, and not try to guess what the prof might or might not have intended.

Only the most bored and sadistic profs try to devise trick questions or demand that you read their minds in order to answer correctly. The vast majority of profs are busy as hell, irritated because they have to make out an exam, and eager to get the test over so they can get back to this major ego trip called “lecturing.” So they’re not likely to waste time trying to make questions ambiguous and obscure psychic exercises, at least on purpose; most of them, however, are quite capable of writing such questions by accident or out of self-delusion, thinking they are perfectly clear.

(6) If you’re allowed to comment on questions, do it.

If you’re unsure about a particular answer or feel like a question is not a good one, then always (always!) make the comment in writing, using the phrase “I answered question with choice ___ because . . .” In most cases, you’ll get the question correct anyway because thinking through your reasons helps you with the rationale for choosing between options.

(7) Make sure you answer all the questions.

Again, this is a very simple rule, although some profs are very devious and try to design multiple choice tests that either penalize you for guessing or give you choices that specify two or more other choices. My advice is to avoid these profs if at all possible.

(8) Always, ALWAYS, keep your exams if allowed to, record the correct answers, and use these old exams to study for the final.

You’d be surprised at how many students ignore this obvious rule. Profs can be quite lazy and therefore use the same questions over and over again. I’ve often used the same test questions multiple times and even given students the questions in advance. Statistically, this behavior on my part makes little or no difference in class averages because so many students ignore my advice to study the questions before the test.

In response to a Facebook post regarding Halloween ghost stories on campus, here is an excerpt from BE CAREFUL, DR. RENNER!

GEOL 322, Micropaleontology, is a hoot this morning. Half a dozen of these really bright young people are dressed up as fossils. One has built an ameba shell; her arms and legs exit where pseudopods would be located. One of the guys is a Permian ostracod, with spiny clam-like valves and some kind of a head gear that looks like jointed antennae. There are a couple of worms, again with antenna hats and rows of spike-like feet down their sides. These kids have put a lot of work into this one day of fun. So I say to hell with whatever pontifications I’ve prepared this morning. Let the animals speak!

“Okay, Chrysalidina, tell us about yourself!”

Chrysalidina if not, of course, her real name; it’s her Halloween costume. She stands up, and with her arms moving slowly, drifts as on a gentle ocean current to the front of the room. Her audience is silent with admiration.

“My name is Chrysalidina gradata,” she proclaims; “and I come to you from the Cretaceous.” She’s eighty million years old. “I was discovered by d’Orbigny, Alcide Charles Victor Marie Dessalines d'Orbigny, that is, and I now live in Paris!” She pronounces it Pah-ree and does a runway twirl. “Never been to the Musé National d'Histoire Naturelle? Non? Then I give you a tour!”

For the next ten minutes she gives us a verbal tour of the fossil collections, in French. We are spellbound. And so it goes for the rest of the class period. One by one, these incredible young scientists regale their classmates, and their teacher, with similar performances. Fossils speak. There is simply no way to describe this experience unless you’ve lived it. At the end, I’m tempted to say a prayer, a prayer of thanks for having ended up here, in semi-rural Iowa, in this profession, with these people, doing their thing. Reality, however, is sitting upstairs, in my office, and its name is detective Leonard Branch.

“Morning, Dr. Marshall.”

“Good morning, detective Branch.” I honor him with that title, although we both know it’s as much of an act as Chrysalidina’s trip through the Musé Histoire Naturelle was forty-five minutes ago. “Evidently we’re meeting at the Renner house this morning, although to be really honest, I don’t know why I’m supposed to be there.”

Like hell I don’t know why I’m supposed to be at Renner’s place on Cherry Lane; I need to take notes and pass the information along to Elizabeth if there is college property in that house, part of the official Geology Department inventory. Also, after finding those cards to Renner, from Mary and Elizabeth, wishing him well in his travels but warning him of potential health problems, I’m a little less dismissive of Branch’s speculations about Renner’s demise. Somehow the combination of staff concern, given those blistering, insulting, and probably illegal letters from Renner about those ladies’ job performance, simply doesn’t seem logical. If someone—a supervisor—wrote me those kinds of letters, and I knew they were absolutely incorrect, I’d tell that person to go to hell and start figuring out a way to get even.

(BE CAREFUL, DR. RENNER! was the NaNoWriMo project for 2012, the perfect murder at a small liberal arts college in Iowa. It's available on smashwords, kindle, and nook.)

An excerpt from PIECES OF THE PLAINS: MEMORIES AND PREDICTIONS FROM THE HEART OF AMERICA

6. The Firm

A good reputation is more valuable than money.

—Publilius Syrus, from Maxim (first century B.C.)

An instructor says, “My worry is that you’ll become educated beyond your obedience.”

—John Rolfe Gardiner, in his review of Kevin Roose’s The Unlikely Disciple.

For Educational Purposes, every Employé should be taken into the Firm.

—George Ade (from The Fable of the Subordinate Who Saw a Great Light)

            Back in the late 1970s, a year went by during which I repeatedly photocopied 230 pages of a manuscript, took them down to the post office, and mailed them off to some publisher. I trusted, completely, in the wisdom of Writer’s Market, a book that I’d bought, believing with total naïveté what various publishers said about their commercial interests and feeling equally confident that the next one would snap up this piece of non-fiction literature I’d entitled The Fundulus Chronicles. After twenty-two rejections, a young man named Dennis Holler from St. Martin’s Press called and asked if the book had been sold. I said no, it was still available, and he replied that they were interested in publishing it. I was alert enough to not say something about the previous rejections, one of which had been with a letter asking “why do you waste your postage sending us things that don’t turn us on?” and tried to act calm, as he said that someone would call me back the next day. When Tom Dunne, the St. Martin’s editor who accepted the book, called later, he made the verbal offer, $5000 in advance royalties, but also indicated that St. Martin’s Press didn’t want to get into a bidding war. I told him to send me the contract and I’d sign it. That book eventually became Keith County Journal. A few weeks after it was published, I got a late afternoon phone call from someone at Time Magazine.

            “We’re reviewing Keith County Journal,” the caller said; “could you provide a photograph?”

            “Sure,” I replied; “what’s the address?  I can mail it.”

            “No need to mail it,” she said; “just put it in an envelope somewhere that we can pick it up.”

            I put the picture in an envelope, wrote TIME MAGAZINE in big capital letters on the outside, and put it on the floor outside my office door, leaning up against the wall. When I came to work the following morning the envelope was gone. The next time I saw that photograph it was in Time.  A few days later I was walking back from Bennett Martin Library, in downtown Lincoln, into the teeth of a bitter February north wind, when a colleague from another department yelled at me from across the street.

            “Hey, John!! What’s _______ saying about you now?!? Huh? What’s _______ saying about you now?!?”

            The individual referred to as _______ was my department chair. I tend to think about this particular set of events fairly often, mainly because they seem to characterize my business, namely, that of American higher education. In this business, reputation is currency, and it can be earned, spent, created, or destroyed, just like other kinds of currency, but the worst thing you can do with it is leave it in that metaphorical bank where it earns no interest, i.e., the files of your department chairman’s office. No, in this business, reputation needs to be put to work—invested—sometimes to bring you pleasure, like a deep intellectual conversation during a quiet meal with good friends, or to recruit a student with exactly the right kind of personality into your research lab. At other times it needs to serve as a weapon, like when you use it on purpose to make another university employee uncomfortable if not downright psychologically stressed out of his or her mind. Usually, but not always, your immediate supervisor is the target. And when you need such a weapon, your picture in Time is the rough equivalent of a nuclear warhead.

Excerpt from a WIP

Here, below, is an excerpt from a work that's been in progress for some time. I may have posted other excerpts from this particular project, and indeed may have posted this one before. But in my opinion, it's worth putting up again.

I am also writing this book because of a conversation I had not long ago with an African gentleman. He was a scientist at one of the nation’s premier universities and his wife, also of African descent, was a local physician. We were at a social gathering held in the home of a university scientist and his wife, a couple of staunch conservatives hosting a houseful of liberals, but surviving, as well as catering, the evening beautifully. Because only at the most mindless of social occasions does conversation not eventually turn to politics, before long we began to discuss the nation’s leadership and global current events.

“In my country,” said the African gentleman, “the politicians do not want you to talk about them. They do not want your attention focused on the misery in your own nation. Instead, they want you to spend your time thinking about the rest of the world so that they can be corrupt, and build their own wealth by stealing from the people, and carry out their own personal vendettas, often destroying their nation in the process, and the population will not be paying any attention.”  His deep resonant and slightly accented voice added to the authority of his words. He paused. “That is what they want.”  He smiled in a very patient, tolerant, way. “So we grow up knowing quite a bit about the rest of the world, not because we are so interested in global affairs, but by default.”

Based on my experience with educated foreigners, I would say he was correct about his own worldliness. I have been in social settings with scientists from at least twenty different nations—including some now considered terrorist states—over the past several decades. All of these scientists are more cosmopolitan than my American colleagues; most of them speak and read at least two languages comfortably and are rarely if ever constrained by having Fox News as their only sources of information. In fact, many of them get on the Internet and listen to newscasts in German, French, and Chinese. I can promise you they’re not listening to Bill O’Reilly.

“But in your country,” my African acquaintance continued, “the politicians want you to be concerned with what they are doing to make you happy and safe and rich, and with local problems that seem very dramatic.”  By “local problems” he could easily have been talking about everything from the O. J. Simpson, Michael Jackson, Scott Peterson, and Casey Anthony trials to the disappearance of a teenage girl in Aruba, the murder of children by their mother, the Christmas murder of a child beauty queen, or a lawsuit over display of The Ten Commandments—that is, the substance, the heart and soul, of American public discourse, cable news, and, arguably, Americans’ vision of our legal and social systems.

“So you grow up ignorant of the rest of the world.” He took a sip of his vodka. “You are happy because your leaders tell that they are not going to raise your taxes,” he continued, “but your indebtedness grows daily.” He smiled. “And you are losing your economic competitiveness because you are afraid of science.” He shook his head, looked over at his wife, then turned back to me. “Why does this happen?” I couldn’t answer; I was still stuck on his “ignorant of the rest of the world.”

JJ

Excerpt from INTELLIGENT DESIGNER: EVOLUTION FOR POLITICIANS

Excerpt from INTELLIGENT DESIGNER: EVOLUTION FOR POLITICIANS, the chapter entitled Why is Scientific Literacy of Such Importance?

There may be public debate over “environmental issues,” but in the end Mother Nature will decide how much rain to deliver and when to deliver it, how much corn can be produced on an acre of Iowa farm land, and whether to bash New Orleans into oblivion or break San Francisco off the country and dump it into the Pacific Ocean. So “debate over environmental issues” really translates into a contest between what we know and understand about the way nature works and what we want to have happen. In other words, scientific literacy shapes the contest between reality and desire.

This contest between reality and desire is perhaps the most important reason of all for a nation’s citizens to be, on the average, scientifically literate. Scientists have a certain mindset, one that is governed by evidence, observation, and technology, and in which interpretations or conclusions are always subject to modification based on additional information. In the vast majority of cases, this scientist’s approach to his or her profession carries over into everyday life outside the laboratory. Scientists certainly are not alone in exhibiting this particular type of behavior; artists, attorneys, and physicians, indeed virtually all of us, tend to view the world through lenses shaped by our professions. But we need to remember the fundamental nature of science: an exploration of the universe using falsifiable assertions as the primary working tool, assertions that are developed within the context of a general explanatory theory such as evolution.

This basic nature of the scientific enterprise generates some rules about evidence used to support assertions. Put bluntly, the scientific mindset demands falsifiable assertions and observations that will test those assertions. Scientists typically heap scorn on assertions that cannot be falsified, good examples of which can be found daily in American political discourse and indeed throughout American domestic policy of the Third Millennium. Scientists are equally scornful of assertions for which the supporting evidence is exceedingly flimsy, borderline unattainable, or subject to severe sampling flaws. Some such assertions are so burdened with ideological baggage that studies to test them, while technically possible, are not always politically possible. Again, our public political discourse provides many illustrations of such assertions. Here are a few familiar ones:

(1) Abstinence-only sex education in public schools will significantly reduce sexual activity among teenage children, unwanted pregnancy, the incidence of sexually transmitted disease, and abortion.

(2) A combination of standardized testing and threatened punishment for low performance on such tests will significantly improve the levels of math and science literacy among American school children, especially the most disadvantaged ones.

(3) Reducing taxes for the wealthier Americans will improve the economic status of all Americans.

(4) Some kind of a national health care program will bring economic ruin to the United States.

(5) Prescription drugs purchased in Canada are a public health hazard.

(6) Elimination of prayer in public schools leads to moral decay of the nation.

(7) Hollywood is eroding American moral fiber with its never-ending supply of sex and violence.

This list could be longer, and with a little bit of effort, any American could add to it just by reading the newspaper or listening to the radio. Thus we are besieged with assertions that seem to be congruent with our internal logic yet to the scientific mind fail for all the above mentioned reasons.

Excerpt from a WIP entitled "Smart Phone Dialogues"

The ideal place to perform any of these dialogues is in a crowded airport terminal gate with a lot of people sitting around waiting for their flights, although the pieces may be adapted to about any situation where you’re thrown in with a bunch of strangers that you know you’ll never see again and are guaranteed to be separated from within an hour or two. The dialogues should be especially effective if there is an idiot nearby who is doing the same thing, although really talking to another person.

Dialogue #2 – The Pet Vampire:

(Ringtone: Something from Kung Fu Vampire)

Hi, Sam; yeah, we got it done okay . . . took a little while, figuring out how to prepare those cow blood food bags instead of letting them bite our arms . . . but it turns out they’re super smart . . . train ‘em to do about anything.

(Pause)

Well, they’re pretty good sized, y’know, wingspan’s maybe a foot . . . like, you know it big time when they come through the living room. Like, you got a vampire bat flying through your house, and you got people over for dinner or something, and everyone notices right away. . . I mean, they’re pretty hard to ignore, especially when they’re flying around over the dinner table . . . (laughs) . . . almost imagine ‘em taking a hungry look at your rare steak, right?

(Pause)

Depends. Our colony is rabies free, so no need to worry about that. So sort of depends on how somebody wants to get bit. I’d be careful about offering a jugular, y’know! (laughs)

(Pause)

Oh? Cow blood. I mean, once we figured it out, these things breed really well, and when we started, we didn’t realize how easily they were trained. Y’know, they’re like house broken. Crap and pee in a litter box, just like your cat . . . I mean, like, these are serious bats, and they do bite, but mainly strangers, like when you have folks in for a party or something. .  . . But yeah, they just fly down, take a little nip off someone’s cheek, lap up a little blood, then take a dump in their litter and go back up.

(Pause)

Back up? Oh, it’s a little rack, up on the ceiling, sort of like a towel rack. Just screw it into the ceiling. Let ‘em loose the first time up near there, and they find it right away.

(Pause)

Litter box? Turns out all you need is a little sound generator . . . right frequency . . . yeah, after all, these are bats, y’know . . . they got big ears . . . they find it right away.

(Pause)

Depends on how many you order. . . I recommend a couple of females to start.

(Pause)

Cow blood? . . . Yeah, we finally bought our own herd, just to guarantee the supply, so we ship maybe a hundred gallons a day, all over the country (laughs). I mean, when you got a pet vampire, that’s a status symbol you gotta keep fed, right?

(Pause)

Yeah . . . better a bag of cow blood than your own, right? (laughs) Ended up with a bunch of scars on the arm, ‘til we figured that one out.

(Pause)

Five hundred each, plus shipping. We do overnight, Fed Ex, UPS, whichever you want . . . Need to get your litter box, your ceiling rack set up in whatever room you want ‘em to stay in, and a pretty good supply of blood . . . we’ll ship you a couple months’ supply . . . hundred bucks a quart . . . keep it in the freezer . . . thaw it out in the microwave when you need a bag . . . works like a charm.

(Pause)

Oh, now get this . . . we also got this Rent-a-Witch thing going.

(Pause)

Yeah, she’s a major babe. Tall, thin, stacked, real dark eyes, black hair, dresses up in one of those Elvira-type costumes . . . gets along great with the bats.

(Pause)

Thousand dollars an hour . . . two hour minimum . . . plus transportation and expenses . . . I mean if she gets on a plane to somewhere, and has to take along a couple of animals, ends up staying in a fancy hotel . . rents a decent car . . . could end up costing you four, sometimes five.

(Pause)

She’s booked for the next seven months.

(Pause)

She handles it all . . . puts a temporary rack in your house somewhere . . . takes care of the litter box . . . brings along some cow blood . . . shows up in costume.

(Pause)

Okay . . . I’ll put you down for a pair . . . and a two-night Rent-a-Witch gig . . . Friday, XXXXX, and Saturday, XXXXX . . . got it. (Pick dates some time eight months in the future.)

(Pause)

Twenty five percent down . . . non-refundable . . . I’ll do the calcs and send you an estimate, along with the contract paperwork . . . e-mail ?

(Pause . . . pretend to enter information in phone)

Hey, we also got a franchise deal, if you have a place to start a colony . . . okay, I’ll send you the info . . . works best if you have a barn, or something like that . . . some area of the house you’re not using.

(Pause)

Guano? We bag it for fertilizer . . . yeah, bat guano is really high in nitrogen . . . best fertilizer you got . . . ‘specially for vegetables . . . that part of the business works best if you got a barn, or outbuilding of some kind . . . guano’s not pure, of course . . . mixed in with that litter . . . but the litter’s good for your garden, too.

(Pause)

Well, if you go the franchise route . . . you can add a fertilizer operation, too, whenever you’re ready . . . usually works best when people can hide these things . . . a whole lot easier, and actually more profitable, than a pot farm. (laughs)

(Pause)

Nobody’s got caught yet, at least that we know of.

(Pause)

Okay . . . got you down for two females . . . two months’ supply of blood . . . litter box and ceiling roost rack . . . two nights of Rent-a-Witch . . . and a franchise information packet . . . anything else ?

(Pause)

Thanks, Sam . . . you’re a buddy . . . hey, have a good one . . . I’ll shoot you a text when the stuff goes on the truck . . . Thanks again. Say hi to the everyone back there . . . take care . . . and hey . . . be sure to return the Rent-a-Witch, right? (laughs)

(Pretends to log out of this conversation, enter a bunch of information, and makes another “call”)

Yeah . . . just booked ‘em for a couple more nights . . . big party in Dallas . . . bachelor’s party for a buddy’s gettin’ married for the third or fourth time . . . just sent you the info.

(Pause)

No problem . . . he promised to send her back . . . write that into the contract, okay? . . . Never find another Witch like that one, right? . . . See you in a couple of days.

(Pretends to log out of this conversation.)

An excerpt from INTELLIGENT DESIGNER: EVOLUTION FOR POLITICIANS

This excerpt is from the chapter entitled "Why are politicians so scientifically illiterate?"

As indicated in the previous chapter, testable assertions are the hallmark of science, and I’ll expand on this scientific property within the context of political action later in this chapter. But for the moment, we should remember that in the political arena, assertions are testable only within an historical framework. In other words, politics is an historical discipline with its own rules of evidence that may not match those of proximal or normal science, i.e., the kind of science that does experiments with material amenable to experimentation. Within the realm of history, you can’t really do “experiments,” as we properly define the term; you can only assess the validity of some assertion by looking back on what actually happened when you acted as if that assertion was true. There is no better example of this kind of historical assertion testing than the Iraq war that began with the invasion of that nation by a group of other nations, led mostly by the United States, in 2003. The assertion was that Saddam was developing, or had, and intended to use “weapons of mass destruction,” the assertion that Iraqis would quickly adopt an American-style democracy once their dictator was overthrown, the assertion that Iraq would be a business-friendly working environment shortly after hostilities ceased, all were tested and shown to be false. But unlike a real experiment, say involving bacterial metabolism, you can’t go back and start over with Iraq.

The vast majority of all politicians rely on public approval to sustain their employment. In addition, once in office, the trappings of power can become quite seductive. These two facets of political life are among the main reasons that politicians are so scientifically illiterate, or at least act as if they are. Nevertheless, most if not all positions occupied by politicians also involve major responsibilities, compliance with various laws, ceremonial activities, and nowadays, public scrutiny of religious beliefs and behaviors demonstrating “faith.”  Nobody who professes to be an atheist should be so stupid as to spend money running for public office in the United States of America, no matter how lowly that office might be or how qualified the individual. Elected membership on the Lancaster County, Nebraska, Weed Control Authority comes immediately to mind; no self-proclaimed secular humanists need apply. Thus politicians are scientifically illiterate, or act as if they are, because the demands of public office, the need for public approval, and the constant scrutiny of their faith-based behavior, all job-related phenomena that work to make such literacy a liability instead of an asset.

Besides the factors of responsibility, approval, and scrutiny, it is also important to remember that mobs want answers and solutions, not questions and problems, from their leaders. In general, science tends to produce more questions and problems than answers and solutions. This tendency derives from the fundamental nature of science as an activity. Elsewhere in this book I use the metaphor of an island of understanding in a sea of ignorance to explain why science produces more problems than solutions. Remember that as an island grows in size (increase in understanding), its shoreline (the boundary between understanding and ignorance) also grows. All the questions and problems lie along this boundary. In addition, to continue with the metaphor, the larger an island gets, the more geographically diverse it tends to become. If that geographic diversity involves mountains, then we have a high perch from which to observe the sea of ignorance. Routinely such observation shows that sea to be much larger than we imagined when we were only down on our hands and knees in the sand studying nature at the [metaphorical] shore.

The familiar case of New Orleans vs. Hurricane Katrina beautifully illustrates all these points about breadth of knowledge, comparative thinking, observations, history, and the basic properties of science. Breadth of knowledge is perhaps the most important factor that should have been considered in the political decisions involving the Mississippi Delta ecology. Thus a broadly educated politician would never simply ask how much money an ecological project—for example, a system of levees and an artificial river (the New Orleans shipping channel)—costs, or how much money the public is willing to spend on such a project. Instead, as a minimum, a broadly educated politician considers history, socio-economic conditions, the probability of disaster, the quality of expertise consulted, whether or not that expertise is in agreement with other expertise from diverse sources, the nature of observations, the process of analysis, and whether the process itself has obvious flaws or internal contradictions. In other words, to really assess the adequacy of New Orleans levees, one would have to study the Mississippi Delta using approaches that would be quite familiar to any evolutionary biologist.

Research over the past half century, i.e., activity increasing both the size of our island of understanding and the length of its shoreline boundary with the sea of ignorance, clearly revealed (produced) more questions and problems about the Mississippi Delta region than answers and solutions. Such research involved new technologies such as satellite imagery, geographic information system software, and socio-economic analysis, as well as experience derived from study of the Achafalaya River and its basin using more conventional methods—measurement of stream flow, sedimentation and erosion rates, pressures on diversion dams and gates, etc. Over the years, the scientific community came to realize that the initial problem and its solution, namely, keeping water out of New Orleans by building levees, was actually only a small part of a much larger problem, specifically, long term management of the interrelationship between a nation’s economy and one of the world’s largest rivers. This kind of collective activity, in which a truly massive ecosystem is the primary player at the center of a highly integrated, far-reaching, transportation and financial network, does not lend itself to governance by mobs that want answers and solutions, not questions and problems, from their leaders. Instead, this kind of system requires almost Jeffersonian dignity, patience, foresight, and breadth, traits that don’t survive well in our Third Millennium media-driven electioneering environment.

Such a broad education, and its use in a public arena, is therefore a lot, indeed probably too much, to ask of any modern politician. But then, of course, it is the job of any newspaper reporter half-way qualified for his or her job to ask the right questions of elected officials in order to reveal their breadth of knowledge, in situations involving natural phenomena, or, in the best of all worlds, to inspire those politicians to acquire knowledge, wisdom, and some decent honest advisers who are not just sycophants. Sadly, perhaps for reasons that are deeply embedded in the human DNA, as a general rule we are not patient with careful analysis, complex interactions between elements of nature, varying degrees of probability, and leaders who are honest about the chances that disaster will befall us. Instead, we seem to admire leaders who are strong advocates of actions based on our beliefs and desires, who inspire us to be courageous, and who tend to simplify a complex universe down to issues and explanations we can understand. And leaders who can convince us we are in danger, and seem to be fighting that danger in an obvious way, are the ones we seem to admire the most. None of this typical interaction between a population and its chosen leaders promotes scientific literacy or honesty about the relationship between nature and people.

INTELLIGENT DESIGNER is available on kindle, nook, and smashwords.com, and as a nice paperback from createspace.com