Advertisement

Critical Science Literacy: Making Sense of Science

  • Susanna Priest
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Media and Environmental Communication book series (PSMEC)

Abstract

In this “new media” world, more is demanded of citizens in terms of evaluating scientific claims than ever before. Science itself is a social activity. While so-called heuristic (cue-based) processing is often defined as less desirable than systematic (more thoughtful) processing, we are almost all dependent on heuristic cues when evaluating science. Priest argues here that we need to redefine science literacy as involving understanding the social character of science—how science actually works in terms of the collective ability of the scientific community to arrive at consensus-based conclusions through processes of discussion, replication, and review. Naturally those processes are imperfect, but they generate the best knowledge we have. Part of this new “critical” science literacy is understanding the nature of scientific consensus.

Keywords

Public Engagement Scientific Fact Scientific Truth Scientific Claim Heuristic Processing 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. American Institute of Physics. 2015. The Discovery of Global Warming. https://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm
  2. Bhattacharjee, Y. 2005. Citizens Supplement Work of Cornell Researchers. Science 308(5727): 1402–1403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bishop, G. F. 2004. The Illusion of Public Opinion: Fact and Artifact in American Public Opinion Polls. Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  4. Clarke, C.E. 2008. A Question of Balance: The Autism-Vaccine Controversy in the British and American Elite Press. Science Communication 30(1): 77–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fausto-Sterling, A. 1987. Society Writes Biology/Biology Constructs Gender. Daedulus 116(4): 61–76.Google Scholar
  6. Harris, G. 2010. British Journal Retracts Paper Linking Autism and Vaccines. New York Times, February 2. www.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/health/research/03lancet.html?_r=0
  7. Kuhn, T. S. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd ed. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  8. Latour, B., and S. Woolgar. 1986. Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. 2nd ed. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  9. National Science Foundation. 2014. Science and Engineering Indicators 2014. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/index.cfm/chapter-7/c7h.htm
  10. Priest, S. 2013. Can Strategic and Democratic Goals Coexist in Communication Science? Nanotechnology as a Case Study in the Ethics of Science Communication and the Need for “Critical” Science Literacy. In Ethical Issues in Science Communication: A Theory-Based Approach, eds. J. Goodwin, M. F. Dahlstrom, and S. Priest, 229–244. Proceedings of the Third Summer Symposium on Science Communication, Iowa State University, May 30–June 1.Google Scholar
  11. Rughinis, C. 2011. A Lucky Answer to a Fair Question: Conceptual, Methodological, and Moral Implications of Including Items on Human Evolution in Scientific Literacy Surveys. Science Communication 33(4): 501–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Science/American Association for the Advancement of Science. 2016. Special Online Collection: Hwang et al. Controversy—Committee Report, Response, and Background. http://www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/misc/webfeat/hwang2005/
  13. Secko, D., E. Amend, and T. Friday. 2013. Four Models of Science Journalism: A Synthesis and Practical Assessment. Journalism Practice 7(1): 62–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Seethaler, S. 2016. Shades of Grey in Vaccination Decision Making: Tradeoffs, Heuristics, and Implications. Science Communication 38(2): 261–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Spence, W., R. B. Herrmann, A. C. Johnston, and G. Reagor. 1993. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1083. Responses to Iben Browning’s Prediction of a 1990 New Madrid, Missouri, earthquake. U.S. Government Printing Office. http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1993/1083/report.pdf
  16. Sturgis, P., and N. Allum. 2004. Science in Society: Re-Evaluating the Deficit Model. Public Understanding of Science 13(1): 55–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Wynne, B. 1989. Sheepfarming After Chernobyl: A Case Study in Communicating Scientific Information. Environment 31(2): 10–39.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susanna Priest
    • 1
  1. 1.Camano IslandUSA

Personalised recommendations