By continuing you agree to eChinacities's Privacy Policy .
Sign up with Google
Sign up with Facebook
Q: Is China easier on the science illiterates ?
Do you think ignorance to science makes life in China easier.
What is the hallmarks of those who enjoy China versus those who suffer daily? I think, if I look among my expat friends/acquaintances, those who are, if not scientific illiterate, less enlightened about science seems to be the ones with greater acceptance of how China is.
Examples.
- If you don't know the mechanics of democracy, e.g. you just know you come from a place where you vote once in a while and you think politics suck, would you find it easier to accept the regime of China as being better for the country than any alternative, or simply not give it any thought.
- If you don't know how the body deals with heavy metals and believe that a doctor can "cleanse you of toxins" is it less worrisome to breathe the air and drink the water ?
and I would claim the same is true for the locals, those who are ignorant to science are those who are happy in China
(science.... very broad term here, could be physics, biology, economics or you could look at the word in its Latin original meaning: "Knowledge"
Many locals believe in some superstitious facts not in hard proven science, even those who are educated, of course there are exceptions but I lost count of how many times I have heard that "Chinese bodies are different " to justify drinking boiled tap water, and otherwise heard that boiled water is perfectly safe, sure boiling it kills the bacteria but it doesn't eliminate the heavy metals rejected from the factories and that are worse than bacteria for your body on the long run. And this is only one example among many.
The fact that no one washes their hands, people handle raw poultry/meat with their bare hands, and they don't understand basic hygiene or transmission of disease. Some of the worse diseases are spread by oral-fecal transmission. Good luck protecting against that when people defecate where they please, then flies transmit them to your dinner table. And they wonder why China is a breeding ground for disease. Ignorance really is bliss.
nzteacher80:
Every chef I have ever met handles raw poultry with their hands. There is nothing wrong with it as long as you are aware of the science behind bacterial cross-contamination.
DrMonkey:
@nzteacher80 I never saw anyone using soap in public toilets here. Ok, at my company, but because it's mandatory, it's part of the lab's protocol. On that topic, I always mention the story of the soap bottle I bought for me and my colleague when I was working at university, to use when we go to the toilets. It was put on the table dedicated to toilet papers roll. I left the place, came back 2 years later for a visit... The soap bottle was still there, covered of dust, same amount of soap. I use it, and wash the bottle. I come back 6 months later, same thing, unused.
hi2u:
@nzteacher80: Because Chinese people understand about cross-contamination? You mean they don't splash their dirty chicken water all over the place when cooking? Or pick their nose or other orifices with contaminated hands? That's a nice dream.
Eorthisio:
nzteacher it's funny how your messages while remaining optimistic are now tinted with a touch of negativity, more than they used to be for sure, I give you one more year before you realize that China truly sucks and become just like those other expats you criticize.
nzteacher80:
Eorthisio. You are not my father and I'll never join the dark side of the force. If I thought China sucked I'd leave.
ambivalentmace:
im sorry we have no flights to nz today maybe tomorrow, what's your hurry, enjoy china.
I remember, a few years ago, someone working for a science company (Agilent) telling me that she did not believe in relativity (ie. the famous physics theory). I mention that GPS system is based on relativity, that laser gyroscope are based on a relativistic effect (Sagnac effect), that time shift have been measured, that it predicts correctly several thing like light bending... I mention that if she bases her knowledge on what she sees with her naked eyes, then the Earth is flat and the Sun is revolving around the Earth... She took it as a personal aggression, it was me trying to show my superiority and maker her feel bad. I told her that jo, she says something that is provably incorrect, and I wish to fix that. She threw a tantrum. Conversation ended, a few hours of pouting.
The general pattern is "If I don't like reality because it pushes me out of my comfort zone, then I will shun reality". Avoiding a self-consistent corpus of knowledge, avoiding to be self-consistent, avoiding causal links makes your mind very flexible, you can see whatever makes you comfortable. Then you feel in peace and harmony with yourself. There's a social price to that, but that does not matter, you just need to bend your vision to not see it.
Scandinavian:
DrMonkey:
@Scan Let's say a Flat Earther who live deep in the land, far from the sea (that conversation was in Chengdu). For the causation/correlation issue, yes, it's a human problem, but it's strong in China. And if you point out this confusion, it will be taken as a personal issue ("You say that put me down, you arrogant man !"), not as an element of conversation.
Scandinavian:
you do know (I know you know) . if you are in Chengdu and you stand in front of said flat earther, and you start walking, the same thing will happen, and as an added bonus you will be far away from the flat earther.
gouxiong:
Actually she may be right :) There is general theory of relativity and special theory of relativity. Currently there is not existing any proof of general theory of relativity validity. I am not saying it's not valid - I do not know ... Several hundred years ago the science believed into ether. When Isaac Newton came so all also looked to be correct but turned to be just 'approximation'. You could easily find a lot of other examples. I do not want to say that you did not meat an idiot - or let's better say a person not really educated or capable of basic thinking. Poossible. I just want to say that it's always hard to say when talking to other peopel from different culture and using as a tool a language which may not be spoken by all participants on the same level.
DrMonkey:
@gouxiong So, for general relativity, it's well tested
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_General_Relativity
Yes, it might become outdated with further knowledge at some point. Yes, Newton is good enough for many things including spacecraft navigation and classical mechanic.
However, that is not the point here. That person (well, ex-gf actually...) argument was, very clearly stated, that she could not wrap her head around the idea of relative time, therefore it couldn't be right. Mentioning various application of relativity theory (both general and special) was just making her angry, accusing me of arrogance, and hurting her feelings. It really was not a language problem. The same attitude of "if I can't wrap my head around, it can't be, and any facts contradicting me is a personal attack" was used all the freak'in time. And later, I found out this for other people around me, specifically in China.
It makes communication hard of course, since defending a point of view becomes an aggression. It's not a language problem at all.
Yes, the ignorance about science is painfully obvious to those with a scientific education. I studied Biology, which is rather generalist and less specialized than most sciences, but it covers the bases of math, chemistry, physics, medicine, behaviourism and many other fields. Back in Europe, I'd be a font of interesting anecdotes and useful tidbits in conversation, but here the understanding is lacking to even recognize or appreciate the value of my words. And it's unfortunate, since a lot of "old news" is unknown here. But there's traditionalism to contend with, exascerbated by state-run newsmedia, the Intranet, abundant scams and whatnot. An improperly addressed health issue to one foreigner, can be a nationwide profit industry to this country.
Biology is hardly a profitable study to devote your Master's degree to, so my knowledge, expressed in monetary value, becomes useless. Locals are more inclined to listen to well-dressed authority figures, and believe them implicitly. Money makes right, and all my Evolutionary Biology degree makes me, is qualified to earn a teacher's salary. People here will listen with baited breath to what a wealthy-looking foreign manager has to say about a medicine, despite his Business schooling and career being unrelated.
China is still coming to terms with culling it's own stock of intellectuals and students. On the one hand, there is an aversion towards intellectualism (but not elitism). On the other hand, there's the realization that need for education is dire, and the know-how to effect good education has been lost. Perhaps the tendency to focus on feelings and first impressions is all that's left at the moment. But give it time; people want to modernize, but are too arrogant to admit it openly. Fortunately for them, *science* is separate from *morality*, so they may advance in one to the point of seeing the value of the other.
Most of all, people with a scientific background have been trained to seek objectivity, quickly seeing consequences of certain decisions unfold in their minds. People in China display so much rudeness, unequal treatment, favouritism, corruption, selfishness and pettiness - we realize the consequences of those decisions, and watch how people are hurting their own society with divisiveness. We feel hopeless in a situation where politeness, consideration, kindness and solidarity will not be reciprocated, and we wonder why people willingly choose to live in such a situation.
Some of it may be unrealistic cultural notions we bring with us, but I'm certain that Chinese are missing out (also financially) on the benefits of actively improving social capital.
Go into your nearest bookstore and look for the science section. I went into the largest bookstore in Shanghai and there's no real science section. It's full of crap about UFOs and myths and legends like the Bermuda Triangle. How China has a space program I'll never know.
Lord_hanson:
You can thank Russia for that. If you look closely enough you can see the made in Russia logo on the rockets.
I think your statement is too broad. In Europe currently there is no democracy in the sense how it was invented and practised in ancient Greece. I dare to say that in EU currently there is no democracy whatsoever and voting (in majority of EU countries currently almost annualy) does not change the fact but I do not want to argue this as the first question to answer woudl have to be if the democracy is the right way. It sounds very nice but one of my trachers long time ago was once giving the example:
'Imagine you are a passenger at the ocean cruiser in the middle of the sea in the very heavy storm. No applkying democratical principle how current Europe understand that would mean that all passengers and crewmembers would simply vote what to do and in which direction to go. If the majority decision would differ from the pilot/captain recommendation so the ship would the most probably landed very quickly at the sea bottom'.
But I assume this is not what you meant and therefore let me comment on the science other than social science.
Many people in China do care about their health. And due to the current system they are so much 'superstitios' using certain, available, medicine/approaches which can hardly work. A lot of Chinese know about the negative influence of heavy metals on their health. But what can they really do?
Europe not so long time ago went through the same period of time. It's just the case of last decades when enviromental protection starts playing bigger role. Sometimes so big that it results in 'ecoterrorism' but that is also a different story.
But I agree with you that many people voluntarily choose to live in ignorance as they believe (as per my opinion wrongly ...) that they can do nothing and not know the facts will make their lives easier.
But replying your 'simple' question - no, I do not think that not knowing science makes people life in China easier and I do not think that expats not knowing science can integrate easier. I think integration is about a lot of tollerance towards the surrounding environment and certain ability to bear frustration positively ...
rasklnik:
Ah. but you see, in the case of the 'ignorance' of the dark ages, or America, or what ever, it wasn't like you had another place that had answers, for the most part.
Sure, you had Muslim doctors who had figured out there was a connection between hygiene and disease say while the French were still taking three bat a life time, but Chinese have the internet, they have universities, they have a space program and high speed rail!
-Those who choose to be ignorant, are not worthy of respect. Everyone is not entitled to an opinion, when their opinion is wrong. When we fly in an airplane, we do not let every pilot decide when to land. We do not let every engineer decide the safe speed for running a train, and we don't let every farmer decide what he can and can't use on his crops.
-This belief that Chinese, or African, or Hell ever some Rural America ignorance is somehow 'ok' is a bizarre thought that makes no sense in an age of reason and thought. When a doctor believes in God, I don't care, but I want a doctor who believes in germ theory, and not 'bad air.'
DrMonkey:
In Ancient Greece, democracy was reserved to rich men. Now, sex and wealth are not a factory, it's universal.
EU, not having any democracy, I find it very, very, very hard to defend. If voting was a useless illusion, how come minor parties could grab cities or whole provinces ? Why parties have sometime to form alliances ? Why candidates are going through so many visits around the country/region/county/city to meet people and talk with them ? If it was all played in advance with no challenge, they would spare themselves the effort, alliances would not be needed. Parties would appear and disappear. There would not much national debates on hot issues. Candidates would no try so hard to get there points diffused and go into debates. Candidates who have been elected would not to have extra careful to turn against themselves their electors.
gouxiong:
rasklnik, I never said such an approach is advisable and I never mentioned anobody has like or respect people having such aproach. I was just trying to say that for many people it can be the way out of the pressure. For instance Chinese education system poses such a presure on the students that it finally divides them into two main categories (and I admit this is big simplification!). The smaller group of people who pass it successfully (thanks to their inborn abilities of many kinds) and become usually quite successfull in their future lifes (this again is simplification). The predominantly bigger one which simply learns how to avoid the presure and somehow survives (and in many case even graduates university). Some of those are later on successful (thanks to plain luck) but majority is not that successful. But these people also want to have happy life. And their understanding of happiness may differ a lot from other people happiness definition. However nobody pushes anyone to become such a person. On the other hand I could hardly find a country (may be with exception of Singapore but there it's caused a lot by many very very special conditions) which would not be happy to have such people. What would any country do with smart, capable people full of ambitions? It's the same like in the factory - somebody must be cleaning the floors and be hapy with this job and somebody shall plan the new technological processes and put them into the real life). But it's always absolutely upto the given person (with the eventual genetical and environmental limitations) and this is what I always prefer - personal freedom to decide.
gouxiong:
DrMonkey, firstly I must appologize for too big a simplification. EU has a lot of countries and their system differ as well. Also in ancient Grece the limitation was not only wealth but for the sake of this discussion it's not important as also, relatively, small size of the units played its role. What I meant is that if common citizen of EU country wants to change/influence certain principle so it's almost mission impossible. Also the current policy in majority of EU countries results in so called compromise. In fact it means that irrespective whom you vote for the changes will be relativelly minor. If woudl go together on the road and you would like to go right and I left then going straight sounds like a compromise - but it's also the direction which none of us wanted to go. On top of that there is one funny thing - all, relatively well functioning, units with so called democreatic countries and non democratic. But I admit that this can be influenced by vocabulary selection and definitions. Therefore I pointed the 'ancient' example of democracy which differs very much from current one.
DrMonkey:
@gouxiong Your initial statement was EU does not have actual democracy ("I dare to say that in EU currently there is no democracy whatsoever and voting (in majority of EU countries currently almost annualy) does not change the fact"). It now moved that democracy is not really good because the only small decisions are possible. Small decisions like whole welfare schemes post WWII, the common currency, the removal of borders within Europe ? In my home city, the construction of a tramway system and the whole redesign of large docks (it was something that the current mayor promised before election)... Democracy being a weak decision maker is a fallacy, look at changes in Western countries between 1970 to now, it's massive.
gouxiong:
These are two different topics. But I dare to say that EU does not have the democracy in the way how meaning of the democracy is taught at EU schools. Do not have. On top of that I also think that having a democracy in the way how it's taught is not really desirable. From the definition of the average it's clear that about half of the population has under average intelligence. Most probably there is not a country with the desire of letting people with under average intelligence decides the things these people can hardly understand (for instance what type of nuclear power station and at what place are we going to build but you may find numerous examples). Moving then to the second topic - at least one of the reasons you stated below - European welfare system - is as per many economist the reason why EU is now in crisis (not only stagnating) and they foresee that it will not get better until EU can change the current unsustainable social welfare system. Nevertheless they also admit that European countries are lacking the right leader to initiate and control such a process and that European system will the most probably not change soon and if then under the outside pressure. Unfortunately I must say I agree with it. Therefore I assume that Chinese models is one of the solution to the problem. May be the history will show that about three hundreds years when Europe was dominant is just a singularity in the history. But this is already the third topic - too many for such a short comment :)
DrMonkey:
EU as it is taught in school and as it works is fairly close, as much as how the national institution are explained in school. Nobody told me it was a miracle system that makes everything good, I was clearly told it was a difficult compromise. I don't know where you got that civil education was indoctrination.
Contrast that with China's way: keeping its people in fear and uncertainty of what is the law, what are their rights, what are their duty, how their institution works, and appeal to the emotion instead (nationalism). Sure, it looks orderly and stable, for the right definition of "order" and "stable". And it's pure genius: you deprive your population of any say in politics, then you hog on the power by justify yourself with "but the people have zero political experience and no interest in politics. Unless it involves small rocks in the sea.".
The reasoning that half people should be deprived of representative power because they in the lower half average in term of intellect... So you have
1) A way to measure intellect reliably ?
2) That measure is suitable to assess decision-making quality ?
3) You know that half people are under that measure ?
This is at best a populist argument for elitism, which is a broken-by-design concept and got Orwell's seal of approval.
