A new ad loads each time. I think its exactly as they want it unfortunately.
I don't think they mean to be malicious and hurt the UX, I think they are just optimizing for ad-revenue a little too one-sidedly without giving enough thought to how the user feels about it.
I got through 3 questions before I said "shove it."
Kind of funny how a quiz about being scientifically literate is completely design-and-experience illiterate.
edit: Actually, it's not funny. It's the reason a lot of people don't like science. If you're going to do this kind of thing as public awareness, you should make it fun and likable. Not annoying. It puts a bad face on science.
Also the fact that you needed to click EXACTLY on the radio button (wasting all that space that the td > input[type=radio] occupies) and that it doesn't show a cursor: pointer; when hovering on the (<) Previous and Next (>) buttons.
Funny quiz nonetheless. I'm an avid fan of Science (Astronomy, Astrophysics, Biology and Cosmology.), but I didn't get most of the questions right. /sigh
> What combustible compound, the principal component of natural gas, has the chemical formula CH4?
Oh come on, you can be scientifically literate and not remember these factoids. Understanding and internalisation of the "scientific posture" does not equate to the ability to answer random multiple choice questions about chemistry.
I've been a programmer for a while and haven't taken a chemistry class in at least 6 or 7 years but neither question should be that difficult.
For the noble gas question, I've long since memorized the periodic table (since it's just a list and lists are easy to remember - especially using the method of loci).
As for CH4, methane is a basic elementary chemistry concept. I'm fairly certain it would qualify as basic scientific information.
Although I do agree there were some rather difficult ones I wasn't sure how I would know without having memorized it.
I am familiar with the alkanes, it's just the inconsistent names that I can't remember. If the question had asked what C8H18 was called, then "octane" would roll off my tongue.
Also, I obviously haven't memorised the periodic table, nor do I immediately see why doing so is necessary for scientific literacy. Isn't understanding it enough? I bet there's plenty of scientists who can't remember the whole thing.
I'm scientifically literate because I understand the scientific method.. How to set up a hypothesis and test it... Not because I'm good at memorizing factoids
I'm not surprised that a site with the words "Christian science" in the title doesn't get this :)
"Literate" doesn't just mean understanding the basic methodology. It means having a broad knowledge of specific subject matter. Would you call someone "literate" in English if they knew the basic theory of English grammar but had never read, say, anything by Shakespeare?
Heh. Correct. It does not equate to the mastery of being knowledgable in scientific facts. (Though it helps sometimes when dealing with irrational people.)
But I humbly think the most important aspect of being scientifically literate is that you solve problems using reason, factual data, and systematic methodologies.
Someone should post a quiz to test if people are morally literate. I bet we'd see lower scores there, especially from anyone working in the financial sector.
I'm surprised how many HNers are dismissing this as "memorizing" and regurgitating facts when a huge portion of them can be figured out through basic scientific knowledge.
For example: "Protium, which consists of a single proton and no neutrons, is the most common isotope of what element?"
I've never heard of Protium, but there is only a single element I could think of that would fit its description.
