Etherless Learning

learning everywhere, all the time

Posts Tagged ‘Scientific literacy’

Science answers the question of “how,” not “what”

Posted by Ming Ling on May 5, 2011

In “Trust Me, I’m a Scientist” , cognitive psychologist Daniel Willingham argues that the belief that improving science education would increase students’ appreciation for scientific opinion is a misconception, since “Those who know more science have only a slightly greater propensity to trust scientists.” Instead, he suggests, “A more direct approach would be to educate people about why they are prone to accept inaccurate beliefs in the first place.”

I agree with Willingham that educating people in some basic cognitive science (specifically, common fallacies of thinking) would go a long way, but I think he mischaracterizes what good science education should be. It’s not simply about the amount of content, but about an understanding of the nature of science. Science is not a collection of facts, but a way of knowing. Learning more about the history of science (whether in a history class or science class, or both) certainly is one valuable component in providing a richer view of science. Still, it’s only part of the picture. Science education itself should incorporate a strong focus on building an understanding of how scientific knowledge is developed over time. That demands an appreciation for evaluating and quantifying how well evidence supports explanation and comparing the explanatory power of competing theories.

We do still need to provide better science education—a better understanding of “how,” not “what.” It’s crucial for creating a responsible citizenry.

Posted in Reasoning, Teaching & learning | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

How science supplements cognition

Posted by Ming Ling on March 3, 2011

Chris Mooney provides some choice excerpts from his interview of astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson on this week’s Point of Inquiry:

Science exists… because the data-taking faculties of the human body are faulty. And what science does as an enterprise is provide ways to get data, acquire data from the natural world that don’t have to filter through your senses. And this ensures, or at least minimizes as far as possible, the capacity of your brain to fool itself.

If it were natural to think scientifically, science as we currently practice it would have been going on for thousands of years. But it hasn’t…. Science as we now practice it [has] been going on for no more than 400 years.

The operations of the universe can be understood through your fluency in math and science, and it’s math and science that give people the greatest challenges in the school system.

It is precisely because they are not “natural” to our thinking that math and science are such powerful tools: They enable us to overcome our natural cognitive biases.

Math and science are perhaps the greatest cultural artifacts that we have, because our appreciation of them is not innate (as opposed to language, music, and visual perception). Rather, our understanding of them derives from the wisdom discovered, constructed, and passed down from others.

Posted in Reasoning, Teaching & learning | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Distinguishing science from pseudoscience

Posted by Ming Ling on November 15, 2010

Here’s another excellent reminder of the importance of responding to others’ different beliefs gently, in “The 10 Commandments of Helping Students Distinguish Science from Pseudoscience in Psychology“:

Gently challenge students’ beliefs with sympathy and compassion. Students who are emotionally committed to paranormal beliefs will find these beliefs difficult to question, let alone relinquish. Ridiculing these beliefs can produce reactance and reinforce students’ stereotypes of science teachers as closed-minded and dismissive.

Summary of commandments:

  1. Delineate the features that distinguish science from pseudoscience.
  2. Distinguish skepticism from cynicism.
  3. Distinguish methodological skepticism from philosophical skepticism.
  4. Distinguish pseudoscientific claims from claims that are merely false.
  5. Distinguish science from scientists.
  6. Explain the cognitive underpinnings of pseudoscientific beliefs.
  7. Remember that pseudoscientific beliefs serve important motivational functions.
  8. Expose students to examples of good science as well as to examples of pseudoscience.
  9. Be consistent in one’s intellectual standards.
  10. Distinguish pseudoscientific claims from purely metaphysical religious claims.

I think the implications of these guidelines extend well beyond psychology into the nature of science more generally, and into methods for helping the broader public evaluate the connection between belief and evidence more critically. Guidelines #6 and #7 are especially valuable for describing how to do this respectfully and kindly.

Posted in Reasoning | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

When discussing risk backfires

Posted by Ming Ling on November 4, 2010

On “More Talk, Less Agreement: Risk Discussion Can Hurt Consensus-Building on Science/Technology“:

When it comes to issues pertaining to science and technology, “talking it out” doesn’t seem to work. A new study shows that the more people discuss the risks and benefits of scientific endeavors, the more entrenched they become in their viewpoint, and the less likely they are to see the merits of opposing views.

Still more evidence on how people become more entrenched in their views upon actively considering contradictory information and perspectives. We really need to learn more about how emotion and identity influence these discussions, and develop better techniques for listening and communicating.

Andrew R. Binder, Dietram A. Scheufele, Dominique Brossard and Albert C. Gunther. Interpersonal Amplification of Risk? Citizen Discussions and Their Impact on Perceptions of Risks and Benefits of a Biological Research Facility”. Risk Analysis, 29 Oct 2010 DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01516.x

Posted in Reasoning | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Dealing with the "scientific impotence" excuse

Posted by Ming Ling on October 31, 2010

On “Five minutes with the discoverer of the Scientific Impotence Excuse“:

When people are faced with scientific research that clashes with their personal view, they invoke a range of strategies to discount the findings. They will often judge that the topic at hand is not amenable to scientific enquiry [and embrace] the general idea that some topics are beyond the reach of science.

Anyone who seeks to educate, inform, or influence, take note of these techniques to avoid backfire or unwarranted discounting:

  1. Affirm people’s values first.
  2. Frame findings to be consistent with their values.
  3. Present findings in non-threatening ways.
  4. Speak with humility.
  5. Say “discover” instead of “disagree”.
  6. Decrease in-group/out-group salience.
  7. Provide an alternate target for negative emotions.
  8. Teach critical thinking and metacognition in safe settings.

What I really appreciated was the research-based guidance for how to address this resistance to scientific evidence, in the second section of the interview (as summarized above). Misunderstanding the distinction between evidence and belief contributes to the problem, but it may not be so obvious how to highlight that distinction productively. As Munro pointed out, Cohen, Aronson, and Steele’s (2000) research demonstrates one way to resolve this tension, as does some of his own research (which unfortunately didn’t get cited directly in the interview). I think this is an extremely important set of findings because it’s so tempting for people to come down hard on those who “just don’t understand,” lecturing authoritatively and perhaps conveying frustration or even attacking their perspectives.  Unfortunately, that can backfire. Instead, this research shows that a gentler approach can actually be more effective. I take heart in that.

Posted in Reasoning | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »