Introduction to the Special Issue: Theodicy and Challenges of Science: Understanding God, Evil and Evolution

In these “pandemic years” a number of scientific and humanistic questions arise [...]

Agency: What Does It Mean to Be a Human Being?

This paper will look at the results of what has been termed “the crisis of modernism” and the related rise of postmodern perspectives in the 19th and 20th centuries. It concentrates on what is arguably the chief casualty of this crisis – human agency – and the social science that has developed out of the crisis. We argue that modern and postmodern social science ultimately obviate human agency in the understanding of what it means to be a human being. Attention is given to the contemporary intellectual world and the way in which it has been deeply informed by neo-Hegelian and other postmodern scholarly trends, particularly in accounting for how agency has come to play little role in social science understanding of human action. The paper also offers an alternative conception of human agency to the commonly endorsed libertarian model of free choice. Finally, the paper argues that this view of agency preserves meaning and purpose in human action and counters the pervasive social science worldview that sacrifices agency and meaning to powerful invisible abstractions.

How Do Emotions and Attitudes Influence Science Understanding?

Science is often portrayed as a cold, dispassionate enterprise. The notion that science is an emotionless pursuit is mistaken. In Chapter 7, “How Do Emotions and Attitudes Influence Science Understanding?,” the authors explain how conducting and learning about science involve the full range of human emotions, including joy, amazement, surprise, and confusion as well as anxiety, anger, fear, and hopelessness. These emotions are present in the lab, in the science classroom, and in individuals reading about topics like genetically modified organisms and climate change. Research clearly shows that emotions and attitudes are deeply intertwined in thinking and reasoning about science, as they are with all human experiences. If one is in favor of innovative treatments for disease, one is likely to experience curiosity and hope when reading about a new therapy. If one is skeptical about vaccines, one may experience anxiety and fear when reading about fast tracking the development of vaccinations. The authors provide suggestions for individuals, educators, and communicators for heightening appreciation for the role of emotions and attitudes in science understanding and in science doubt, resistance, and denial.

Reading over and under the waves: A study of ocean picture books for children

Marine science picture books have the capacity to shape what young people know and how they think about ocean environments and marine biodiversity. Despite academic scholarship on marine science literacy broadly, relatively little has been done to study the role of picture books in teaching children about this topic. This paper is an attempt to fill that gap, by analysing 100 ocean-themed books against common marine science concepts and the Australian Science Understanding Curriculum streams. A majority of the 100 books analysed were found to link with marine science and the Australian Science Understanding Curriculum (81% and 91%, respectively) where biological concepts were dominant in both cases. Chemical and physical sciences were underrepresented in the 100 books analysed. The study provides examples of books that can be used for teaching marine education in primary schools in Australia and suggest further inquiry into marine science literature for children.

With the little help of science understanding: Examining the direct and indirect role of scientific reasoning and trust in science in normative health behaviour during pandemic

This paper focuses on the science understanding (scientific reasoning and trust in science) and analytic thinking and their role in: 1) having less conspiracy and pseudoscientific beliefs about COVID-19, and 2) behavioral intentions in line with scientific consensus (i.e. following evidence-based guidelines and vaccination intentions). We examined these direct and indirect effect of science understanding on normative health behavior in a representative sample of Slovak population (N = 1024). The results showed more support for the indirect path: people who understand science better had generally less epistemically suspect beliefs and as a consequence, tended to behave more in line with evidence-based guidelines and were more likely to get vaccinated. Neither scientific reasoning nor trust in science predicted avoidance of preventive measures directly, but analytic thinking correlated positively with avoiding preventive measures. The strongest predictor of epistemically suspect beliefs was trust in science, which also directly predicted the intention to get vaccinated against COVID-19. Thus, it seems that reasoning about which experts or sources to believe (second-order scientific reasoning) has become even more important than directly evaluating original evidence (first-order scientific reasoning).