Search

Scientific misinformation and disinformation, proliferating via the internet and social media, are now significant problems. Proposed solutions vary substantially. Here, I describe a set of prospective benchmarks--10 competencies--that seem essential for reorienting science education to address the challenge. They include, first, elements of epistemic motivation, including basic epistemological beliefs about "constructed" knowledge, adopting a posture of respect for empirical evidence, and an understanding of our epistemic dependence on experts. Second, the benchmarks include perspectives and skills in interacting with media sources. These include how to identify experts, how to identify credible gatekeepers, how to recognize deceptive strategies, and how to deal with social networks and technology. Finally, the competencies include self-regulation, such as acknowledging the cognitive dispositions that bias our thinking (especially about information that challenges our pre-existing beliefs) and the counter-balancing role of consensus. I hope that these competency goals can function as a concrete target in guiding discussion of perhaps more complete or more nuanced approaches to the current crisis. With such competencies clearly and explicitly articulated, teachers will be better positioned to develop effective classroom strategies to nurture the relevant competencies.

Ironically, flat-Earthers, anti-vaxxers, and climate change naysayers trust in science. Unfortunately, they trust the "wrong" science. That conundrum lies at the heart of scientific literacy in an age of well-funded commercial and ideological interests and overwhelming digital information. The core question for the citizen-consumer is not philosophically "why trust science?" (Oreskes 2019) but sociologically "who speaks for science?" Teachers can help students learn how to navigate the treacherous territory of inevitably mediated communication and the vulnerabilities of epistemic dependence. Students need to understand the role of science communication practices (media literacy) and the roles of credibility, expertise and honesty and the deceptive strategies used by imitators of science to seem like credible voices for science.

This paper catalogs previous articles in American Biology Teacher on various aspects of teaching about science misinformation and identifies which of the core concepts are addressed in each. A concise overview of relevant themes is provided, along with how the concepts align with the Next Generation Science Standards. This may serve as a practical guide for organizing and planning science media literacy education, to help students negotiate the growing flood of misinformation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Appeals to human nature are ubiquitous, yet historically many have proven ill-founded. Why? How might frequent errors be remedied towards building a more robust and reliable scientific study of human nature? Our aim is neither to advance specific scientific or philosophical claims about human nature, nor to proscribe or eliminate such claims. Rather, we articulate through examples the types of errors that frequently arise in this field, towards improving the rigor of the scientific and social studies. We seek to analyze such claims rhetorically, cognitively, and epistemically. Namely, how do we think about human nature? Claims about human nature, we show, are susceptible to widely exhibited deficits in cognitive tendencies such as framing, confirmation bias, satisficing, and teleological perspectives, as well as motivated reasoning. Such missteps foster methodological, empirical, and psychological mistakes and biases. Specifically, they promote the naturalizing error, whereby cultural ideology and values are projected onto an apparently objective description of nature. Concrete remedies are offered to aid scientists in conducting and reporting their research goals and findings more responsibly and effectively (relevant also to educators and other communicators who convey these findings publicly). Recommendations include acknowledging that human nature claims are often context-dependent, seeking multiple critical perspectives, and explicitly labeling uncertainties., Author(s): Alexander J. Werth [sup.1], Douglas Allchin [sup.2] Author Affiliations: (1) grid.256771.0, 0000 0001 0426 7392, Department of Biology, Hampden-Sydney College, , 23943, Hampden-Sydney, VA, USA (2) grid.17635.36, 0000000419368657, Minnesota [...]

Argumentation constitutes an important element in nature of science education. However, its virtues and scope can be overstated. Here, we survey in detail the place of argumentation in science education. Our benchmark is the range of epistemic processes relevant to citizens and consumers as they assess the reliability of scientific claims in personal and public decision making. We consider multiple epistemic stages in the development (or ontogeny) of such claims: (a) observation and material investigation; (b) the crafting of concepts through individual cognition; (c) the checks and balances of the scientific community; (d) the challenges of credibility and expertise in a cultural context; and (e) the interpretation of "science in the wild," where authentic scientific claims mingle with imitators and misinformation on the Internet and social media and in public discourse. We conclude that many conventional rationalist assumptions haunt current approaches to argumentation and limit its effectiveness, especially in the implicit goal of achieving intellectual independence for students as autonomous scientific agents. A more fruitful approach, from the perspective of functional scientific literacy, is a Whole Science perspective, which gives full expression to the spectrum of epistemic processes in science and science communication.

Individuals are increasingly relying on social media as their primary source of scientific information. Science education needs to adapt. Nature of science (NOS) education is already widely accepted as essential to scientific literacy and to an informed public. We argue that NOS now needs to also include the NOS communication: its mediation, mechanisms, and manipulation. Namely, students need to learn about the epistemics of communicative practices, both within science (as a model) and in society. After profiling the current media landscape, we consider the implications of recent major studies on science communication for science education in the 21st century. We focus in particular on communicative patterns prominent in social media: algorithms to aggregate news, filter bubbles, echo chambers, spirals of silence, false-consensus effects, fake news, and intentional disinformation. We claim that media literacy is now essential to a complete view of the NOS, or "Whole Science." We portray that new content as an extension of viewing science as a system of specialized experts, with mutual epistemic dependence, and the social and communicative practices that establish trust and credibility.

Fact or Faux addresses issues of misinformation and science media literacy. Here, we address those who reject the scientific consensus and justify their beliefs by appealing to Galileo. They claim that the majority persecuted him for his scientific beliefs, but his evidence proved right in the end. However, this view is historically incorrect and also misrepresents the social nature of science and the critical role of consensus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The "consensus view" on the nature of science (NOS) is now outmoded. To help frame an enduring alternative, one should attend first to the "why" of NOS education. Functional, or civic, scientific literacy is foundational. Acknowledging a need for consumers and citizens to assess the reliability of scientific claims in personal and public decision making leads to an expansive, open-ended, and inclusive list of contextualized NOS elements--experimental, conceptual, and social--known as "Whole Science." Any enduring reform also needs to consider practicalities, such as the challenge of assessment, the inevitable role of epistemic dependence (and lessons about expertise, trust, and science on artists), NOS education beyond the classroom, and the development of concrete lessons based on inquiry learning.

This article examines the difficulties and limitations of conducting scientific research on weight loss diets. It acknowledges the complexity of the human body and the individual differences in genetics, microbiota, and metabolism, which make it challenging to apply study results to everyone. The article emphasizes the importance of understanding the nature of science and the presence of uncertainty in research. It suggests that relying on expert consensus and multiple studies is more reliable than basing decisions on a single study or personal opinions. The article warns against the trend of "Do Your Own Research" (DYOR) without considering the expertise of scientific experts. It discusses the dangers of misinformation and pseudoscience in weight loss diets, such as relying on plausibility rather than solid evidence, favoring anecdotes over data, and being influenced by personal motivations. The article also mentions the issue of conflict of interest in nutrition research, where studies may be biased or manipulated to support specific claims. It emphasizes the importance of using reputable sources and expert consensus when making dietary choices. [Extracted from the article]

Misinformation and disinformation about science have reached alarming levels. Here, we summarize a recent expert report, Science Education in an Age of Misinformation, that outlines what science education can do to address this problem and, given the urgency, has to do. We highlight the significance of teaching how the social practices of science contribute to establishing a trustworthy consensus and how students should evaluate the credibility of second-hand claims reported in the media or on the internet. We focus on the concepts of epistemic dependence on experts, competent outsiders, credibility, expertise, consensus, deceptive tactics, and science media literacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]