SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the This-is-why-my-tribe-is-correct dept.
From Scientific American
Science literacy is important, but without the parallel trait of "science curiosity," it can lead us astray
What intellectual capacities—or if one prefers, cognitive virtues—should the citizens of a modern democratic society possess? For decades, one dominant answer has been the knowledge and reasoning abilities associated with science literacy. Scientific evidence is indispensable for effective policymaking. And for a self-governing society to reap the benefits of policy-relevant science, its citizens must be able to recognize the best available evidence and its implications for collective action.
This account definitely isn’t wrong. But the emerging science of science communication, which uses scientific methods to understand how people come to know what’s known by science, suggests that it is incomplete.
Indeed, it’s dangerously incomplete. Unless accompanied by another science-reasoning trait, the capacities associated with science literacy can actually impede public recognition of the best available evidence and deepen pernicious forms of cultural polarization.
The supplemental trait needed to make science literacy supportive rather than corrosive of enlightened self-government is science curiosity.
Simply put, as ordinary members of the public acquire more scientific knowledge and become more adept at scientific reasoning, they don’t converge on the best evidence relating to controversial policy-relevant facts. Instead they become even more culturally polarized.
This is one of the most robust findings associated with the science of science communication. It is a relationship observed, for example, in public perceptions of myriad societal risk sources—not just climate change but also nuclear power, gun control and fracking, among others.
In addition, this same pattern—the greater the proficiency, the more acute the polarization—characterizes multiple forms of reasoning essential to science comprehension: polarization increases in tandem not only with science literacy but also with numeracy (an ability to reason well with quantitative information) and with actively open-minded thinking—a tendency to revise one’s beliefs in light of new evidence.
The same goes for cognitive reflection. The Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) measures how much people rely on two forms of information processing: “fast,” preconscious, emotion-driven forms of reasoning, often called “System 1”; or a conscious, deliberate, analytical, “slow” form, designated “System 2.”
[...] But given what positions on climate change have now come to signify about one’s group allegiances, adopting the “wrong” position in interactions with her peers could rupture bonds on which she depends heavily for emotional and material well-being. Under these pathological conditions, she will predictably use her reasoning not to discern the truth but to form and persist in beliefs characteristic of her group, a tendency known as “identity-protective cognition.”
[...] Conceptually, curiosity has properties directly opposed to those of identity-protective cognition. Whereas the latter evinces a hardened resistance to exploring evidence that could challenge one’s existing views, the former consists of a hunger for the unexpected, driven by the anticipated pleasure of surprise. In that state, the defensive sentries of existing opinion have necessarily been made to stand down. One could reasonably expect, then, that those disposed toward science curiosity would be more open-minded and as a result less polarized along cultural lines.
This is exactly what we see when we test this conjecture empirically. In general population surveys, diverse citizens who score high on the Science Curiosity Scale (SCS) are less divided than are their low-scoring peers.
[...] The findings on science curiosity also have implications for the practice of science communication. Merely imparting information is unlikely to be effective—and could even backfire—in a society that has failed to inculcate curiosity in its citizens and that doesn’t engage curiosity when communicating policy-relevant science.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Wednesday December 12 2018, @05:21AM (19 children)
If no more money, the solution is simple: start the science of the science of science communication.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 5, Disagree) by aristarchus on Wednesday December 12 2018, @05:56AM (18 children)
It is called "Big Science". Has no connection to actual science, has to do with funding. If you pay enough, you can buy a governor of Wisconsin. But that is neither here nor there. Real science is about truth, and that is why Americans are so opposed to it. Americans: opposed to truth. There it is, I have said it, and it is true. Now if only Trump will shut down the government, including ICE, and DHS, and MFCB, then we will see what happens when an idiot is precedent. And then we start the science of the science communication. It is the only way to be sure. Oh, and TMB is most certain to be wrong on this, given his level of education.
(Score: 1, Touché) by khallow on Wednesday December 12 2018, @06:04AM (1 child)
(Score: 4, Funny) by aristarchus on Wednesday December 12 2018, @06:41AM
Represent the khallow tribe! They are mean! They are flush! They love them some rich dudes! And, they have hand-sign. Not saying what it is, but it is definitely mos gangsta! You rock, khallow! You and your tribe! Of, . . . one?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday December 12 2018, @07:53AM (8 children)
Sorry, but no. It is not true.
You have to say it three times.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday December 12 2018, @08:54AM (7 children)
Sadly, for Americans, I do not. They know it. Lincoln said it.
Makes me glad I am not an American. If I were, I do not know how I could bear with the shame. Such great promise. And now such, well, such desecration. And it is Lincoln's own party that has done it. America should be ashamed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @12:17PM (1 child)
Is realDonalTrump your alter-ego?
(Score: 3, Informative) by aristarchus on Wednesday December 12 2018, @06:27PM
no.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday December 12 2018, @01:58PM (2 children)
Take it as a cautionary tale, and pity us. We didn't elect Trump. The Republicans committed massive voting fraud and cheated their way into office. That's the kind of fools they are. Rather than try to win an election honestly, they show their utter moral bankruptcy by resorting to cheating, and they can't see why they shouldn't do that.
Fools always want to be in the driver's seat, and will seize the wheel any way they can. They think they're such great drivers. Our problem is that our institutions and customs didn't shut down the cheating. They've seized the wheel. And they've been making a mess ever since. It's been a long national nightmare.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday December 12 2018, @06:14PM (1 child)
It's been a long national nightmare.
Caused by a bad diet [nih.gov]...
You made no effort to understand why people vote and reelect corrupt politicians, even though it has all been well documented in every first year (animal) psychology book. Don't blame the winners, unless you can show real evidence the count was fraudulent.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Saturday December 15 2018, @03:36PM
Please summarise the reason why. I don't have a first-year psychology textbook around.
-- hendrik
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 13 2018, @02:56AM (1 child)
You poor witless wonder. First, you tell us that Americans are opposed to truth. Then you hold up an American to make your case. If the former is true, then the latter has to be false. Fact is, you don't know truth from fiction, and are unqualified to make any posts on the subject.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday December 13 2018, @04:30AM
Please, tell us more! Enlighten wretches such as myself with your wisdom! Or, perhaps, you do not understand time as an element of truth?
(Score: 2) by Hyperturtle on Wednesday December 12 2018, @02:21PM (6 children)
I admire the score of 5 and the accompanying moderation of 'disagree'.
Does 5 mean strongly disagree, or that it's a great comment--full of what we want to see at Soylent as a component of the back-and-forth exchanges between contributors and a reason to return and read some more--but unfortunately is not what the moderating tribe believes in?
I can't tell what the moderation and score together actually are intended to represent.
I am going to guess it's the worst possible that someone can give when they strongly disagree, but the high score seems to indicate that it's either indicating that the post itself is of great merit, or the moderator hated it so much it didn't matter what it was except that giving it a 1 seemed to indicate that they barely disagreed, and a negative score would unduly bury it, preventing everyone from seeing just what was so strongly disagreed to.
Sometimes you have to parade around the enemy's head and put it on display in order for it to serve as a warning to others, which this may be as well.
That said, it's probably true that many Americans want to believe lies that are convenient to them. It's probably just as true that many Americans don't want to believe that.
(Score: 1) by DECbot on Wednesday December 12 2018, @04:31PM (4 children)
My personal opinion, the Disagree mode is available to prevent abuse of the Spam/Flamebait mods. Generally, the comment will have both Interesting and Insightful mods giving the +5 score, and the Disagree mod (+0) because the moderator holds the comment in contention. Without the Disagree mod, the comment would likely get lost because of the constant +1/-1 voting between Interesting/Insightful/Spam/Flamebait.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @09:55PM (3 children)
Or, instead of a bunch of dittoheads giving a post a +0 Disagree mod they could, like, you know, explain to all and sundry why they disagree with said post. Perhaps this would have the interesting side effect of...wait for it!...possibly moving the discussion forward a bit, cause an honest exchange of views/ideas, etc. But what do I know? I'm just an AC!
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday December 13 2018, @12:32AM (2 children)
That would be the ideal, yes. Unfortunately it's one of those bits of perfection that's impossible to achieve short of hiring someone to stand behind every community member and flick the hell out of their ear every time they do a driveby shitting upon of a comment without engaging in the conversation themselves.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by DECbot on Thursday December 13 2018, @03:05PM (1 child)
Is that what the Soylent News donations are for?
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday December 13 2018, @03:20PM
Nope. Those go for keeping the staff from having to be sober while taking abuse for volunteer work.
Seriously though, those are entirely for for server and domain costs, a business license, taxes, and the labor of the CPA who files said taxes. Anything left over, and there's not much, gets socked away so we can continue paying said bills if we have a lower than usual period of income at some point.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Pino P on Wednesday December 12 2018, @05:05PM
If you're unclear as to how moderation works on SoylentNews and other Slash/Rehash sites, I've attempted an explanation of that comment's moderation [soylentnews.org] in my journal.