Don’t Trust the Scientists! Rejecting the Scientific Consensus “Conspiracy”

Public Understanding ◽

The Public ◽

Scientific Consensus ◽

Scientific Facts

Scholars assessing the public understanding of science have long regarded informing Americans about scientific facts as key to raising Americans’ scientific literacy. But many Americans appear to be aware of the scientific consensus and nonetheless reject it. The individuals who are aware of the scientific consensus and reject its tenets tend to distrust scientists. They also focus their rejection on particular issues for which they may be otherwise motivated. This rejection may be driven by elites, who argue against the scientific consensus on issues like climate change by asserting either that the science is unsettled or by contending that the scientific consensus is itself a conspiratorial ploy. Individuals’ patterns of beliefs seem to imply that they view scientific evidence they dislike as the result of a conspiracy.

Should You Be a Public Scientist?

10.1093/oso/9780197571316.003.0029 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 375-380

Author(s):

Dennis Meredith

Keyword(s):

Climate Change ◽

Resource Depletion ◽

Public Understanding ◽

The Public ◽

It Impacts ◽

Global Problems ◽

The Media ◽

Understanding Of Science

Deciding whether to be a “public scientist”—using the media spotlight to highlight important issues—means deciding whether one is a natural explainer. Also, it must be decided how much time and effort can be committed to such outreach and how it impacts research and other activities. Explaining research does offer satisfactions, in that the researcher is contributing to public understanding of science. One problem is that the coverage of science and technology is small and shrinking. That said, opportunities to reach the public directly through websites and social media are considerable. The role of public scientists and the importance of explaining research in general are becoming ever more critical because failure to bridge the information gulf between researchers and the public will hamper, perhaps tragically, our ability to solve the massive global problems we face—climate change, resource depletion, ecological damage, food security, and disease.

Theory and measurement in the public understanding of science: a rejoinder to Bauer and Schoon

10.1088/0963-6625/2/3/004 ◽

1993 ◽

Vol 2 (3) ◽

pp. 235-243 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Jon D. Miller

Keyword(s):

Scientific Literacy ◽

Three Dimensional ◽

Public Understanding ◽

Data Set ◽

Public Science ◽

The Public ◽

Dimensional Measure ◽

Open Question

In the paper `Mapping variety in public understanding of science' Bauer and Schoon apply a multi-dimensional coding to responses to the open question `Please tell me, in your own words, what does it mean to study something scientifically?', and draw some conclusions about cultural diversity from their results. I argue here that this study was inappropriate for two main reasons: first, because the open question was formulated and fielded not to elicit information which would reveal diversity but to assess public scientific literacy against a three-dimensional measure of understanding of three aspects of science which are relevant to the conduct and resolution of public science policy debates; and second, because the data set used by Bauer and Schoon was small and biased.

Fundamentals of Logic, Reasoning, and Argumentation: An Evidence-Supported Curriculum Targeting Scientific Literacy to Increase Public Understanding and Engagement in Science

10.20944/preprints201812.0281.v1 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

La Shun L. Carroll

Keyword(s):

Scientific Literacy ◽

Scientific Evidence ◽

Public Understanding ◽

Basic Knowledge ◽

Public Confidence ◽

Synthetic Approach ◽

The Public ◽

Definition Of ◽

Logic Reasoning

The American Academy of Arts and Sciences suggested the definition of science literacy emphasize how crucial understanding the scientific process and the ability to evaluate conflicting scientific evidence is.  The purpose of this article is to present an evidence-supported curriculum covering the fundamentals of logic, reasoning, and argumentation skills to address the emphasized basic knowledge, skills, and abilities required to be scientifically literate, which will prepare the public to understand and engage with science meaningfully.  An analytic-synthetic approach toward understanding the notion of public is taken using a theoretical biomimetics framework that identifies naturally occurring objects or phenomena that descriptively captures the essence of a construct to facilitate creative problem-solving.  In the present case, the problem being solved is how to reconcile what is meant by public, how it ought to be interpreted, the different levels of confidence in science that exist, and various understandings of science all with one another.  The results demonstrate there is an inherent denotative-connotative inconsistency in the traditional notion of public that can be explicated through the concept of a fractal allowing for comprehension of the relationship between public confidence in, and understanding of, science.

Between citizen and consumer: multiplying the meanings of the “public understanding of science”

10.1088/0963-6625/7/4/004 ◽

1998 ◽

Vol 7 (4) ◽

pp. 313-327 ◽

Cited By ~ 42

Author(s):

Mike Michael

Keyword(s):

Consumer Culture ◽

Scientific Literacy ◽

Science Studies ◽

Public Understanding ◽

The Public ◽

The Status ◽

Research Questions ◽

Sociological Studies

This paper explores how the “public understanding of science” might be reconceptualized in light of the recent sociological treatments of consumption. I consider the implications that the rise of consumer culture and the increasing aesthetisization of everyday life have for micro-and macro-sociological studies in the public understanding of science. In particular, I examine how consumer culture impacts upon the status of the “lay local” and the nature of citizenship as they relate to the public understanding of science and scientific literacy. Further, I explore how the discourses and techniques of public understanding of science studies might contribute to the formulation of the lay person as consumer. Finally; in light of these points, I formulate a number of research questions that might enable the development of the “public understanding of science.”

Understanding understanding: a model for the public learning of radioactivity

10.1088/0963-6625/8/4/301 ◽

1999 ◽

Vol 8 (4) ◽

pp. 267-284 ◽

Cited By ~ 15

Author(s):

Steve Alsop

Keyword(s):

Informal Learning ◽

Background Radiation ◽

Public Understanding ◽

Change Model ◽

Potential Health ◽

The Public ◽

Conceptual Change Model

While much of the work in the public understanding of science has focused on the public's appreciation of science and their familiarity with key scientific concepts, understanding the processes involved in learning science has largely been ignored. This article documents a study of how particular members of the public learn about radiation and radioactivity, and proposes a model to describe their learning—the Informal Conceptual Change Model [ICCM]. ICCM is a multidimensional framework that incorporates three theoretical dimensions—the cognitive, conative, and affective. The paper documents each of these dimensions, and then illustrates the model by drawing upon data collected in a case study. The emphasis of the analysis is on understanding how the members of the public living in an area with high levels of background radiation learn about the science of this potential health threat. The summarizing comments examine the need for a greater awareness of the complexities of informal learning.

The roles of rhetoric in the public understanding of science

10.1088/0963-6625/3/1/001 ◽

1994 ◽

Vol 3 (1) ◽

pp. 3-23 ◽

Cited By ~ 109

Author(s):

Alan G. Gross

Keyword(s):

Rhetorical Analysis ◽

Public Understanding ◽

Minor Role ◽

Contextual Model ◽

Deficit Model ◽

The Public ◽

Science Rhetoric ◽

Social Scientific

In the public understanding of science, rhetoric has two distinct roles: it is both a theory capable of analysing public understanding and an activity capable of creating it. In its analytical role, rhetoric reveals two dominant models of public understanding: the deficit model and the contextual model. In the deficit model, rhetoric acts in the minor role of creating public understanding by accommodating the facts and methods of science to public needs and limitations. In the contextual model, rhetoric and rhetorical analysis play major roles. Rhetorical analysis provides an independent source of evidence to secure social scientific claims; in addition, it supplies the grounds for a rhetoric of reconstruction, one that reconstitutes the fact and facts of science in the public interest.