Undergraduates’ Grasp of Evidence for Evaluating Scientific Knowledge Claims Associated with Socioscientific Issues

2021 ◽  
pp. 149-160
Author(s):  
Won Jung Kim ◽  
Alicia C. Alonzo
2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 300-321 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ye Sun ◽  
Zhongdang Pan

Abstract Publication bias has been recognized as a threat to the validity of meta-analytic findings and scientific knowledge in general. Given the recent rise in meta-analytic research in communication, how well publication bias concerns are addressed by communication meta-analysts merits attention. In this essay, after a brief overview of publication bias and some major methods of assessment, we provide a systematic review of meta-analyses published in six major communication journals between 2005 and 2018. The review focuses on two aspects of addressing publication bias in meta-analyses: (a) reducing the potential impact of bias via an inclusive literature search; and (b) empirically assessing the extent and impact of bias in meta-analytic findings. Our review shows that the current practices in communication meta-analyses are inadequate in both aspects. We offer recommendations on ways of improving practices in meta-analyses, as well as in research and publication processes, to better safeguard knowledge claims.


Author(s):  
Martin Carrier

The social organization of science as a topic of philosophy of science mostly concerns the question of which kinds of social organization are most beneficial to the epistemic aspirations of science. Section 1 addresses the interaction among scientists for improving epistemic qualities of knowledge claims in contrast to the mere accumulation of contributions from several scientists. Section 2 deals with the principles that are supposed to organize this interaction among scientists such that well-tested and well-confirmed knowledge is produced. Section 3 outlines what is supposed to glue scientific communities together and how society at large is assumed to affect the social organization of these communities. Section 4 attends to social epistemology (i.e., to attempts to explore the influence of social roles and characteristics on the system of scientific knowledge and confirmation practices).


Author(s):  
Nicholas Rescher

Fallibilism is a philosophical doctrine regarding natural science, most closely associated with Charles Sanders Peirce, which maintains that our scientific knowledge claims are invariably vulnerable and may turn out to be false. Scientific theories cannot be asserted as true categorically, but only as having some probability of being true. Fallibilists insist on our inability to attain the final and definitive truth regarding the theoretical concerns of natural science – in particular at the level of theoretical physics. At any rate, at this level of generality and precision each of our accepted beliefs may turn out to be false, and many of them will. Fallibilism does not insist on the falsity of our scientific claims but rather on their tentativity as inevitable estimates: it does not hold that knowledge is unavailable here, but rather that it is always provisional.


2018 ◽  
Vol 56 (4) ◽  
pp. 403-431 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sebastian Felten

This article looks into mining in central Germany in the late eighteenth century as one area of highly charged exchange between (specific manifestations of early modern) science and the (early modern) state. It describes bureaucratic knowledge as socially distributed cognition by following the steps of a high-ranking official that led him to discover a rich silver ore deposit. Although this involved hybridization of practical/artisanal and theoretical/scientific knowledge, and knowers, the focus of this article is on purification or boundary work that took place when actors in and around the mines consciously contributed to different circuits of knowledge production. For the sake of analysis, the article suggests a way of opposing bureaucratic versus scientific knowledge production, even when the sites, actors involved in, and practices of that knowledge production were the same or similar. Whereas the science of the time invoked consensus among equals to conflate competing knowledge claims, bureaucracies did so by applying a hierarchy among ranked individuals.


1994 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 205-216 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen C. Zehr

Much research in social studies of science addresses scientists' interpretative flexibility in the construction of scientific knowledge. This flexibility is readily visible among different scientists' competing knowledge-claims as well as in their accounts across different social settings. This article illustrates this process and discusses some of its implications through a case study of descriptions of acid rain in published scientific papers and Congressional testimony. As acid rain was flexibly reconstructed in Congressional testimony, its meanings and implications for control legislation became more contested. Some descriptions of acid rain that were intended to usefully clarify the phenomenon actually contributed to an impression of scientific uncertainty, and thereby further polarized debate.


2016 ◽  
Vol 26 (8) ◽  
pp. 1003-1018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Scharrer ◽  
Yvonne Rupieper ◽  
Marc Stadtler ◽  
Rainer Bromme

Science popularization fulfills the important task of making scientific knowledge understandable and accessible for the lay public. However, the simplification of information required to achieve this accessibility may lead to the risk of audiences relying overly strongly on their own epistemic capabilities when making judgments about scientific claims. Moreover, they may underestimate how the division of cognitive labor makes them dependent on experts. This article reports an empirical study demonstrating that this “easiness effect of science popularization” occurs when laypeople read authentic popularized science depictions. After reading popularized articles addressed to a lay audience, laypeople agreed more with the knowledge claims they contained and were more confident in their claim judgments than after reading articles addressed to expert audiences. Implications for communicating scientific knowledge to the general public are discussed.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Steven L. Goldman

While all definitions are stipulative by nature and reflect alternative usages, the meaning of the word “knowledge” is especially ambiguous. It carries profound consequences for what we mean by truth, reality, and rationality, but most importantly for our understanding of scientific knowledge claims. Rhetorically, knowledge trumps belief and opinion, but it is not clear that knowledge, even scientific knowledge, is essentially different from and superior to belief and opinion. As to the questions of what scientists know and how they know it, no answers have stood up to critical scrutiny in the history of modern science. Despite this uncertainty, modern science has claimed a hegemony in our society on the production of knowledge as superior to belief and opinion.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaoying Li ◽  
Suyuan Peng ◽  
Jian Du

AbstractIn China, Prof. Hongzhou Zhao and Zeyuan Liu are the pioneers of the concept “knowledge unit” and “knowmetrics” for measuring knowledge. However, the definition on “computable knowledge object” remains controversial so far in different fields. For example, it is defined as (1) quantitative scientific concept in natural science and engineering, (2) knowledge point in the field of education research, and (3) semantic predications, i.e., Subject-Predicate-Object (SPO) triples in biomedical fields. The Semantic MEDLINE Database (SemMedDB), a high-quality public repository of SPO triples extracted from medical literature, provides a basic data infrastructure for measuring medical knowledge. In general, the study of extracting SPO triples as computable knowledge unit from unstructured scientific text has been overwhelmingly focusing on scientific knowledge per se. Since the SPO triples would be possibly extracted from hypothetical, speculative statements or even conflicting and contradictory assertions, the knowledge status (i.e., the uncertainty), which serves as an integral and critical part of scientific knowledge has been largely overlooked. This article aims to put forward a framework for Medical Knowmetrics using the SPO triples as the knowledge unit and the uncertainty as the knowledge context. The lung cancer publications dataset is used to validate the proposed framework. The uncertainty of medical knowledge and how its status evolves over time indirectly reflect the strength of competing knowledge claims, and the probability of certainty for a given SPO triple. We try to discuss the new insights using the uncertainty-centric approaches to detect research fronts, and identify knowledge claims with high certainty level, in order to improve the efficacy of knowledge-driven decision support.


2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 227-246
Author(s):  
Joby Varghese ◽  

This paper proposes a functional approach to characterize epistemic and nonepistemic values. The paper argues that epistemic values are functionally homogeneous since (i) they act as criteria to evaluate the epistemic virtues a hypothesis ought to possess, and (ii) they validate scientific knowledge claims objectively. Conversely, non-epistemic values are functionally heterogeneous since they may promote multiple and sometimes conflicting aims in different research contexts. An incentive of espousing the functional approach is that it helps us understand how values can operate in appropriate and inappropriate ways in scientific research and inappropriate influences can eventually be prevented. The idea is to argue that since non-epistemic values are functionally heterogeneous, they cannot provide objective reasons for the acceptance of a hypothesis. However, their involvement is necessary in certain research contexts and the problem is the involvement of these need not be always legitimate. By analyzing a case from chemical research, I demonstrate that how non-epistemic values might influence scientific research and, then, I go on to demonstrate that how a proper understanding of the functions of different kinds of values might promote the attainment of multiple goals of a particular research in a legitimate and socially relevant way.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document