Knowledge about the nature of science increases public acceptance of science regardless of identity factors

Scientific and religious beliefs are primarily shaped by testimony

Understanding why individuals are more confident of the existence of invisible scientific phenomena (e.g., oxygen) than invisible religious phenomena (e.g., God) remains a puzzle. Departing from conventional explanations linking ontological beliefs to direct experience, we introduce a model positing that testimony predominantly shapes beliefs in both scientific and religious domains. Distinguishing direct experience (personal observation) from cultural input (testimony-based evidence), we argue that even apparently direct experiences often stem from others' testimony. Our analysis indicates that variability in direct experience cannot explain belief disparities between science and religion, within each domain, or across cultures. Instead, variability in testimony is the primary driver of ontological beliefs. We present developmental evidence for testimony-based beliefs and elucidate the mechanisms underlying their impact.

Reasoning about climate change

Why is disbelief in anthropogenic climate change common despite broad scientific consensus to the contrary? A widely held explanation involves politically motivated (system 2) reasoning: Rather than helping uncover the truth, people use their reasoning abilities to protect their partisan identities and reject beliefs that threaten those identities. Despite the popularity of this account, the evidence supporting it (i) does not account for the fact that partisanship is confounded with prior beliefs about the world and (ii) is entirely correlational with respect to the effect of reasoning. Here, we address these shortcomings by (i) measuring prior beliefs and (ii) experimentally manipulating participants' extent of reasoning using cognitive load and time pressure while they evaluate arguments for or against anthropogenic global warming. The results provide no support for the politically motivated system 2 reasoning account over other accounts: Engaging in more reasoning led people to have greater coherence between judgments and their prior beliefs about climate change-a process that can be consistent with rational (unbiased) Bayesian reasoning-and did not exacerbate the impact of partisanship once prior beliefs are accounted for.

People with more extreme attitudes towards science have self-confidence in their understanding of science, even if this is not justified

People differ greatly in their attitudes towards well-evidenced science. What characterises this variation? Here, we consider this issue in the context of genetics and allied sciences. While most prior research has focused on the relationship between attitude to science and what people know about it, recent evidence suggests that individuals with strongly negative attitudes towards specific genetic technologies (genetic modification (GM) technology and vaccines) commonly do not objectively understand the science, but, importantly, believe that they do. Here, using data from a probability survey of United Kingdom adults, we extend this prior work in 2 regards. First, we ask whether people with more extreme attitudes, be they positive or negative, are more likely to believe that they understand the science. Second, as negativity to genetics is commonly framed around issues particular to specific technologies, we ask whether attitudinal trends are contingent on specification of technology. We find (1) that individuals with strongly positive or negative attitudes towards genetics more strongly believe that they well understand the science; but (2) only for those most positive to the science is this self-confidence warranted; and (3) these effects are not contingent on specification of any particular technologies. These results suggest a potentially general model to explain why people differ in their degree of acceptance or rejection of science, this being that the more someone believes they understand the science, the more confident they will be in their acceptance or rejection of it. While there are more technology nonspecific opponents who also oppose GM technology than expected by chance, most GM opponents fit a different demographic. For the most part, opposition to GM appears not to reflect a smokescreen concealing a broader underlying negativity.

Science Denial

Abstract. Science denial has adverse consequences at individual and societal levels and even for the future of our planet. The present article aimed to answer the question: What leads people to deny even the strongest evidence and distrust the scientific method? The article provides a narrative review of research on the underpinnings of science denial, with the main focus on climate change denial. Perspectives that are commonly studied separately are integrated. We review key findings on the roles of disinformation and basic cognitive processes, motivated reasoning (focusing on ideology and populism), and emotion regulation in potentially shaping (or not shaping) views on science and scientific topics. We also include research on youth, a group in an important transition phase in life that is the future decision-makers but less commonly focused on in the research field. In sum, we describe how the manifestations of denial can stem from cognitive biases, motivating efforts to find seemingly rational support for desirable conclusions, or attempts to regulate emotions when feeling threatened or powerless. To foster future research agendas and mindful applications of the results, we identify some research gaps (most importantly related to cross-cultural considerations) and examine the unique features or science denial as an object of psychological research. Based on the review, we make recommendations on measurement, science communication, and education.

How "is" shapes "ought" for folk-biological concepts

Knowing which features are frequent among a biological kind (e.g., that most zebras have stripes) shapes people's representations of what category members are like (e.g., that typical zebras have stripes) and normative judgments about what they ought to be like (e.g., that zebras should have stripes). In the current work, we ask if people's inclination to explain why features are frequent is a key mechanism through which what "is" shapes beliefs about what "ought" to be. Across four studies (N = 591), we find that frequent features are often explained by appeal to feature function (e.g., that stripes are for camouflage), that functional explanations in turn shape judgments of typicality, and that functional explanations and typicality both predict normative judgments that category members ought to have functional features. We also identify the causal assumptions that license inferences from feature frequency and function, as well as the nature of the normative inferences that are drawn: by specifying an instrumental goal (e.g., camouflage), functional explanations establish a basis for normative evaluation. These findings shed light on how and why our representations of how the natural world is shape our judgments of how it ought to be.

Rapid sleep education: If you could tell people one thing about sleep, what should it be?

Informal learning settings such as museums provide unique opportunities for educating a local community about sleep. However, in such settings, information must be capable of immediately inciting interest. We developed a series of sleep "icebreakers" (brief, informal facts) to determine whether they elicited interest in sleep and encouraged behavioural change. There were 859 participants across three cross-sectional samples: (a) members of the local museum; (b) Mechanical Turk workers who responded to a "sleep" study advertisement; and (c) Mechanical Turk workers who responded to a "various topics" study advertisement that did not mention sleep. All three samples demonstrated high interest in sleep topics, though delayed recall of the icebreakers was strongest in participants who expected to learn about the sleep topics. Icebreaker interest ratings were independent of age, gender and race/ethnicity, suggesting that sleep is a topic of universal interest. Importantly, regardless of demographics and sample, the more the icebreakers interested the participants, the more likely participants were to indicate willingness to donate to a sleep exhibit, change their sleep behaviours, and post to social media. Thus, sleep icebreakers can rapidly elicit people's interest, and future outreach efforts should couple icebreakers with opportunities for subsequent personalized learning.

Analysing mathematical modelling tasks in light of citizenship education using the COVID-19 pandemic as a case study

In this paper, we discuss the theoretical background of mathematical modelling and its connection to citizenship education. Citizenship education in this context means that young people are equipped with competencies to respond as responsible citizens in situations relevant for society. To outline the connection between mathematical modelling and citizenship education in theory, we discuss the aims of mathematical modelling, modelling competences and the connection between numeracy and modelling. Based on these reflections we present an extended modelling cycle that specifically highlights modelling steps relevant to citizenship education. To show how the theoretical connection between mathematical modelling and citizenship education can be used in teaching practice, we describe three different examples of modelling tasks and analyse them with the help of the extended modelling cycle. We argue that the three tasks support different learning aims in relation to citizenship education and require modellers to carry out different steps of the extended modelling cycle. As an example of context, we used the pandemic caused by COVID-19, as it affected the quality of human life greatly, as all students in the Western world experienced.

Charting cognition: Mapping public understanding of COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic of the last 2 years (and counting) disrupted commerce, travel, workplaces, habits, and-of course-health, the world over. This study aimed to capture snapshots of the perceptions and misperceptions of COVID-19 among 27 participants from three US municipalities. These perspectives are analyzed through thematic analyses and concept maps. Such snapshots, particularly as viewed through the lens of narrative sense-making theory, capture a sample of cognitions at this unique moment in history: a little over 1 year into the COVID-19 pandemic. Findings suggest that the (mis)perceptions captured are predominantly conveyed via narratives of participants' personal experiences, and that the themes of attitudes toward precautionary measures, uncertainty, and the muddied science communication environment are prevalent. These themes suggest several salient targets for future research and current science communication, such as a focus on basic explainers, vaccinations' safety and effectiveness and the necessity of uncertainty in the practice of science.

Trust, Science Education and Vaccines

The issue of trust in science has come to the fore in recent years. I focus on vaccines, first looking at what is known about trust in vaccines and then concentrating on whether what science education teaches about vaccines can be trusted. I present an argument to connect the phenomenon of vaccine hesitancy to the issue of trust and then argue for what an education about vaccines in school science might look like that takes seriously the notion of respect for students, including students who hold views about vaccination with which science teachers might disagree. Trust in others (people and institutions) varies greatly, both between countries and within countries, and depends on the characteristics of both trustor and trustee, and there are great differences in the extent to which people trust vaccines. However, it is a mistake to think that people who do not trust vaccines are simply ill-informed. There are a range of reasons for rejecting what is often an unexamined narrative about vaccines, namely that vaccines are always desirable. Many people come from communities that have sound reasons for being suspicious of what they are told by governments, business and the medical establishment. COVID-19 and earlier reactions to vaccination health scares show how important high-quality education about vaccines is. Much of that education can take place out of school, but the foundations are laid in school. Vaccine rejection and hesitancy have major global public health implications. Good quality vaccine education should help students understand about relevant biology and the nature of science; it should also be respectful of all students, including those who come from families that reject vaccines or are hesitant about them.

Do We Have a Trust Problem? Exploring Undergraduate Student Views on the Tentativeness and Trustworthiness of Science

Science includes the fundamental attributes of durability and uncertainty; hence, we teach about the "tentative yet durable" nature of science. Public discourse can be different, where one hears both confidence about "settled science" and doubts about "just theories." The latter observation gives rise to the possibility that emphasis on learning the tentative nature of science offers some people the actionable option of declining to accept canonical science. Our paper reports the findings from initial and replication exploratory studies involving about 500 preservice, elementary/middle school teacher education students at a large Midwestern public university. Using a survey method that included opportunities for student comments, the study tested hypotheses about confidence in the veracity, durability, tentativeness, and trustworthiness of science. We found that most students embrace noncontroversial science as correct, and that almost all embraced the tentative nature of science regardless of what they thought about controversial topics. However, when asked about the trustworthiness of science, many students were not willing to say that they trust scientific knowledge. Even students strongly supportive of science, including controversial science, responded similarly. And why did they say that science is not trustworthy? The explanation echoed by many students was that scientific knowledge is tentative. Our paper concludes with implications for instruction and research. Our findings suggest that it would be prudent for science educators to increase instructional focus on the relationship between data and evidence that leads to the durability of scientific knowledge. Future research needs to thoroughly investigate the public interpretation of what we teach about the nature and characteristics of science, and for the implications it might have on how scientific knowledge is or is not incorporated in the development and implementation of public policy.

A comparative study of the acceptance and understanding of evolution between China and the US

Prior work has found that Americans' views on evolution are significantly and positively related to their understanding of this theory. However, whether this relationship is cross-culturally robust is unknown. This article extends earlier work by measuring and comparing the acceptance and understanding of evolution among highly educated individuals in China and the United States. We find a significantly higher evolution acceptance level in the Chinese sample than in the US sample, but no significant difference in their average levels of evolution knowledge. Our analysis also shows that accepting evolutionary theory is related to understanding in both the US and the Chinese samples. These results provide evidence for the robustness of the relationship between understanding and acceptance of evolution across different cultural contexts. To our knowledge, this is the first attempt to comprehensively test understanding of evolutionary theory within a Chinese sample and to compare these results with the US sample.

Discursive structures and power relations in Covid-19 knowledge production

This article critically examines the discourse around the Covid-19 pandemic to investigate the widespread polarisation evident in social media debates. The model of epidemic psychology holds that initial adverse reactions to a new disease spread through linguistic interaction. The main argument is that the mediation of the pandemic through social media has fomented the effects of epidemic psychology in the reaction to the Covid-19 pandemic by providing continued access to commentary and linguistic interaction. This social interaction in the absence of any knowledge on the new disease can be seen as a discourse of knowledge production, conducted largely on social media. This view, coupled with a critical approach to the power relations inherent in all processes of knowledge production, provides an approach to understanding the dynamics of polarisation, which is, arguably, issue-related and not along common ideological lines of left and right. The paper critiques two discursive structures of exclusion, the terms science and conspiracy theory, which have characterised the knowledge production discourse of the Covid-19 pandemic on social media. As strategies of dialogic contraction, they are based on a hegemonic view of knowledge production and on the simplistic assumption of an emancipated position outside ideology. Such an approach, though well-intentioned, may ultimately undermine social movements of knowledge production and thus threaten the very values it aims to protect. Instead, the paper proposes a Foucauldian approach that problematises truth claims and scientificity as always ideological and that is aware of power as inherent to all knowledge production.

Improving the politics of biotechnological innovations in food security and other sustainable development goals

The unwarranted interference of some environmental non-governmental organisations (ENGOs) in decision-making over genetically modified (GM) crops has prompted calls for politics to be removed from the regulatory governance of these products. However, regulatory systems are inevitably political because their purpose is to decide whether the use of particular products will help or hinder the delivery of public policy objectives. ENGOs are most able to interfere in regulatory decision-making when policy objectives and decision-making criteria are vague, making the process vulnerable to disruption by organisations that have a distinct agenda. Making regulatory decision-making about GM crops and other green biotechnology more resistant to interference therefore requires better politics not the removal of politics. Better politics begins with political leadership making a case for green biotechnology in achieving food security and other sustainable development goals. Such a policy must involve making political choices and cannot be outsourced to science. Other aspects of better politics include regulatory reform to set policy aims and decision-making criteria that encourage innovation as well as control risk, and engagement with civil society that discusses the values behind attitudes to the application of green biotechnology. In short, green biotechnology for sustainable development needs better politics to counter well-organised opposition, to encourage innovation, and to build the trust of civil society for these policies. Removing politics from regulatory governance would be a gift to ENGOs that are opposed to the use of biotechnology.

Reasoning on Controversial Science Issues in Science Education and Science Communication

The ability to make evidence-based decisions, and hence to reason on questions concerning scientific and societal aspects, is a crucial goal in science education and science communication. However, science denial poses a constant challenge for society and education. Controversial science issues (CSI) encompass scientific knowledge rejected by the public as well as socioscientific issues, i.e., societal issues grounded in science that are frequently applied to science education. Generating evidence-based justifications for claims is central in scientific and informal reasoning. This study aims to describe attitudes and their justifications within the argumentations of a random online sample (N = 398) when reasoning informally on selected CSI. Following a deductive-inductive approach and qualitative content analysis of written open-ended answers, we identified five types of justifications based on a fine-grained category system. The results suggest a topic-specificity of justifications referring to specific scientific data, while justifications appealing to authorities tend to be common across topics. Subjective, and therefore normative, justifications were slightly related to conspiracy ideation and a general rejection of the scientific consensus. The category system could be applied to other CSI topics to help clarify the relation between scientific and informal reasoning in science education and communication.

What do COVID-19 Tweets Reveal about Public Engagement with Nature of Science?

Using the social media platform Twitter, this study explores public reference to "scientific method(s)" in tweets specifically pertaining to COVID-19 posted between January and June 2020. The study focuses on three research questions: When did reference to scientific methods peak, which aspects of nature of science (NOS) do these tweets address, and the extent to which Twitter users' sentiments provide useful information about their attitudes towards the scientific method. COVID-19 tweets were mined and queried using "scientific method(s)" as a keyword. A content analysis using the Family Resemblance Approach (FRA) to NOS and a non-computational sentiment analysis were conducted on the obtained data set. The findings revealed that tweets using science method(s) peaked most during the months of April and May, as more information was being communicated about promising treatments and vaccine development. Most tweets were assigned multiple FRA categories. The sentiment analysis revealed that attitude towards the scientific method was predominantly supportive. Discussion of three events that were observed in clusters of tweets provided additional context. The paper concludes by noting the methodological affordances and limitations of applying the FRA for identifying NOS-related content in Twitter environments and underscoring the potential of targeted NOS messaging in promoting informed discussions about NOS in the public sphere.