Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday December 12 2018, @04:41AM   Printer-friendly
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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Flamebait) by qzm on Wednesday December 12 2018, @08:06AM (4 children)

    by qzm (3260) on Wednesday December 12 2018, @08:06AM (#773362)

    Perhaps then you would care to give examples of socialist states that have been resounding successes?

    No?
    Perhaps some nice solid Marxist ones then? surely the purity should help...

    That your false assertion is actually based on is that there is solid evidence that any successful system eventually leads to its own downfall.
    The cause of that seems to generally be internal corruption, however that is not caused by 'high inequality', it is one cause of high inequality.

    For reference: Ask a few people form communist Russia, Maoist China, The current Venezuela how well their 'equality' is working out..

    The 200-300 year cycle of dynastic failure is VERY well established.. Socialist societies however seem to short circuit that period, and pretty much fail immediately.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   0  
       Flamebait=1, Insightful=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Flamebait' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Pav on Wednesday December 12 2018, @01:19PM (3 children)

    by Pav (114) on Wednesday December 12 2018, @01:19PM (#773430)

    The USSR wasn't "communist", just as the DPRK isn't "democratic". I can't blame you though because both the USSRs and the USAs propaganda arms were repeating for half a century that the USSR was the ultimate definition of communism (each country for different reasons) - what hope did you have? Venezuela would be fine if it wasn't for the smell of its oil drawing a complete economic blockade from the USA. The most democratic socialist countries in the world are currently handing the USA its ass... eg. Germany, with its universal health care, unions REQUIRED on company boards, free college (even for non Germans) etc... etc... etc... Sweden, famous not only for its huge welfare state, but for the highest number of multinationals per head in the world (Volvo, Husqvana, Ikea, FHM, H&M, Ericson, SAAB etc...), oh, and they can also build a fighter jet ahead of time and under budget unlike the USA... no wonder they're winning contracts from American companies in the 3rd world. Oh, and to add insult to injury they have a population slightly less than Georgia... What were you saying?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @01:46PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @01:46PM (#773434)

      > The USSR wasn't "communist", just as the DPRK isn't "democratic".

      No. They were just run by evil people who believed in communism and socialism. They demonstrated that the adherents to communism and socialism have no morals, will kill dozens of millions (or more if given the chance).

      Marxist Socialism and its derivatives are evil; the people who support it are evil. They put the state above all other interests and by design deny people basic human rights. They give no rights to common people and use an elite-driven ideological secular religion as an excuse to deny people of their life, liberty and property.

    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday December 13 2018, @03:04AM (1 child)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 13 2018, @03:04AM (#773860) Journal

      No true Scotsman?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 13 2018, @04:33AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 13 2018, @04:33AM (#773887)

        No true Runaway1956, but that is both offtopic, and redundant, no?