People in large parts of the world are inundated daily with paranormal, antiscientific, and nonsensical ideas by the mass media and various charlatans. The general public does not know enough about the processes of science to sort the good from the bad (Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1996; Lederman 1996; National Science Board 1996, 2002; Lipps 1998, 1999). The good reporting and presentation of paleontology and other sciences by these same media are miniscule compared to the junk science they purvey: only about 2% of the programming on USA television can be considered good science (National Science Board 2002), and this includes science in dramas and comedies. This has great impact on all of us everywhere, not just as paleontologists but, far more importantly, as citizens of the world.

Politicians, government agents and citizens decide scientific issues every day without adequate understanding of how science works, how conclusions are derived, how substantial those conclusions might be, and what the consequences of their decisions would really be. Some of these decisions affect us for years (various environmental, global-change, and water issues, and other resource-use policies are a few of many examples), so they should be based soundly in science. Pundits may likewise urge us to behave or vote in certain ways, counter to good scientific evidence or hypotheses, but we should be careful of personalities with big words. Scientific illiteracy cannot be good for you, your country or our world at large.

People need a certain level of scientific literacy just to deal with everyday situations. Some have debated whether scientific literacy for the general public is unnecessary (Greenfield 2003a, 2003b; Nesbit 2003; Turney 2003), and it might be so when scientific literacy is defined as knowledge of certain facts or general issues. Science and scientific literacy can be defined as the possession of knowledge in the first case, and thinking critically, evidentially and logically in the second (Maienschein 1999). Thus the problem of scientific illiteracy cannot be ignored when people themselves use non-scientific methods and processes to make personal decisions or to vote.

Pseudoscience and antiscience cost people around the world billions of dollars every year through their local, state and federal governments and their own direct payments for various kinds of scientifically unsupportable and irrational schemes, as well as money lost to out-and-out deceit that could be discerned through familiarity with the scientific processes of thinking. For example, Americans have, for years, paid billions of dollars for "alternative" medical remedies that lack any scientific support whatsoever and that often do them harm (Park 2000; Shermer 2003). In 1990, they spent 13.7 billion USD for unconventional or "alternative" medical therapies lacking scientific support and a comparable 12.8 billion USD for regular hospitalizations (Eisenberg et al. 1993). By 1997, the costs rose to an estimated total of 27 billion USD for alternative medicine and about the same for out-of-pocket physician services (Eisenberg et al. 1998). Who knows what additional money is paid to tend to or correct medical conditions that were exacerbated or merely delayed by use of these other untested remedies? These amounts may only be the tip of the iceberg, because of the innumerable psychic, cult, conspiracy, astrologic, and many, many more schemes promoted in earnest by true believers or, less honestly, by charlatans who seek your money.

Unfortunately, not many people know much about science. In 2000 the United States had about 222 million adults (age 15 and over; U.S. Census Bureau 2002). If 95% of them are scientifically illiterate, as estimated¹ (National Science Board 1996), then about 211 million would not understand how science works, what the process is of evidential reasoning, or whose opinions to trust, and only about 11 million people would. Assuming that similar percentages apply to the world's population (U.S. Census Bureau 2003), only about 213 million of more than 4,260 million adults might understand how science works. Because these figures are based on estimates of populations and of science illiteracy, they should be considered only an indication of the magnitude of the state of science comprehension for the world. No matter how such estimates are made, the number of scientifically illiterate people worldwide is very large. For self-protection, if no other reason, people need to know the central tenets of science--evidential reasoning, hypothesis development and testing--and who real scientists are and how they work.

What the mass media present in an ostensibly scientific manner is seldom real science (National Science Board 2002). Most of it is pseudoscience, antiscience, superstition, dogma, and sales pitches. Scientific illiteracy is enhanced by such presentations because they confuse fact with fiction, scientific theory with belief, and scientists with non-scientists and charlatans. Why people are fascinated with and will pay good money for pseudoscientific or antiscientific claims is a deep problem, but it involves poor education, personal and mass delusion, various psychoses, indoctrination, hopelessness, fear of other people, apprehension about the world around them, dread of the unfamiliar, and a multitude of other factors (Miller 1987; Eve and Harrold 1990; Shermer 1997). All of these claims add up to an easy target for media moguls--why do anything else when all sorts of pseudoscience, antiscience and weird beliefs are everywhere, from books to universities and colleges? Real science is miniscule in comparison (Shermer 1997), even though most of our society and economy is based on it and technology (Sagan 1996).

¹The National Science Foundation’s 2001 survey of adult Americans showed that 70% were ignorant of how science works. This, it noted, may be a low estimate since it’s survey was biased by inclusion of more well-educated people than reside in the general population (National Science Board 2002).