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

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
La Shun L. Carroll
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Literacy ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
Basic Knowledge ◽  
Public Confidence ◽  
Synthetic Approach ◽  
The Public ◽  
Understanding Of Science ◽  
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.

scholarly journals Fundamentals of logic, reasoning, and argumentation: an evidence-supported curriculum targeting scientific literacy to increase public understanding and engagement in science

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 72
Author(s):  
La Shun L. Carroll
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Literacy ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
Basic Knowledge ◽  
Public Confidence ◽  
Synthetic Approach ◽  
The Public ◽  
Naturally Occurring ◽  
Understanding Of Science ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Logic Reasoning

<p>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, determining the diverse 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.</p>

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

2018 ◽  
pp. 201-213
Author(s):  
Josh Pasek
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Scientific Literacy ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Public Understanding Of Science ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
The Public ◽  
Scientific Consensus ◽  
Understanding Of Science ◽  
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.

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

1993 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 235-243 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jon D. Miller
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Literacy ◽  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Public Understanding Of Science ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Public Science ◽  
The Public ◽  
Dimensional Measure ◽  
Understanding Of Science ◽  
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.

Vivent les differences: identifying audiences for a museum exhibition

1994 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 277-290 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence Fitzgerald ◽  
Pauline Webb
Keyword(s):  
Public Understanding Of Science ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
Civil Aviation ◽  
Audience Research ◽  
Museum Visitors ◽  
The Public ◽  
Understanding Of Science ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Visitor Survey

This paper describes the methodology and presents the main findings of a front-end exhibition evaluation carried out by staff at the Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester, UK, in 1991. A visitor survey was used to evaluate ideas for a forthcoming exhibition on civil aviation and air travel. This research is placed in the context of the role of museums in the public understanding of science and of audience research in museums. The survey findings demonstrate the existence of divisions of interests among museum visitors, particularly according to gender. These differences must be recognized and accommodated by the definition of target audiences if exhibitions are to function as effective channels for developing public understanding of science and technology.

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

1998 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 313-327 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mike Michael
Keyword(s):  
Consumer Culture ◽  
Scientific Literacy ◽  
Science Studies ◽  
Public Understanding Of Science ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Status ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
Understanding Of Science ◽  
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

1999 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 267-284 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steve Alsop
Keyword(s):  
Informal Learning ◽  
Background Radiation ◽  
Public Understanding Of Science ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
Change Model ◽  
Potential Health ◽  
The Public ◽  
Understanding Of Science ◽  
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

1994 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan G. Gross
Keyword(s):  
Rhetorical Analysis ◽  
Public Understanding Of Science ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
Minor Role ◽  
Contextual Model ◽  
Deficit Model ◽  
The Public ◽  
Science Rhetoric ◽  
Understanding Of Science ◽  
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.

scholarly journals Does the apple fall far from the tree?: reviewing the communication of scientific information about GMOs

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauren Kirby
Keyword(s):  
Social Epistemology ◽  
Scientific Information ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
Online Media ◽  
Online Content ◽  
The Public ◽  
Understanding Of Science ◽  
Textual Content ◽  
The Way

Online content is changing the way the public accesses and understands science. The staggering number of often conflicting online sources about science makes it difficult for the lay public to know where to turn in search of accurate scientific information. This project will examine how the nature of online content might be affecting how the public learns about science. Through textual content analyses, it will examine the chain of communication (scientists→online media→public) and document how scientific information evolves. Okanagan Specialty Fruits’ Arctic apple, a genetically modified organism (GMO) that has had the polyphenol oxidase (PPO) gene silenced, will be used as a case study. Three primary themes guide my research: the public understanding of science (PUS), the communication of risk and uncertainty, and social epistemology. The primacy of the PUS movement in public venues for science makes it an important theory for my project, while theories of risk/uncertainty and social epistemology will inform my analysis. My results suggest that: 1) stories about science often include over and understatements of uncertainties and risks; 2) online media stories apply rhetorical frames when reporting scientific information, but the way in which framing is used appears to be reflective of whether the author wishes to persuade their audience; and 3) the rhetorical frames used by online stories about science are not typically integrated into the public’s commentary in a meaningful way, supporting the notion that audiences are active rather than passive and that the public seeks out content that complements their pre-existing beliefs.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document