SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
From Eurekalert:
When it comes to science, socioeconomic status may widen confidence gaps among the least and most educated groups in society, according to a new study by researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison's Science, Media and the Public research group.
The findings, published in June in the journal Science Communication, show that similar levels of attention to science in newspapers and on blogs can lead to vastly different levels of factual and perceived knowledge between the two groups.
Notably, frequent science blog readership among low socioeconomic-status groups actually lowered their scores on factual tests of scientific knowledge while high levels of attention to science in newspapers caused them to feel they were less knowledgeable compared to those who read less or those from higher socioeconomic backgrounds.
"The science section of The New York Times is not written for audiences with little or no prior knowledge of science and technology," explains study co-author Dominique Brossard, professor and chair in the Department of Life Sciences Communication. "Just putting more science in front of less-educated people may therefore confuse them rather than help them grasp complex science."
The team also found that how science knowledge is measured matters, too adding clarity to the science of science communication. Basing policy, public engagement and education efforts on just one measure of science knowledge may not be reliable.
Abstract can be found here.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 09 2014, @12:00AM
I don't think it is a stretch to say that socioeconomic status correlates with education level. So it sounds like what's probably going on here has more to do with the audience having enough background to make sense of the discussion. I wonder how the average writing level of the science articles compares to the education level of the different groups.
(Score: 1) by anubi on Wednesday July 09 2014, @02:57AM
I think one has to be rich enough to be able to afford the "toys" to build things...
But not too rich that his concern more down the line of paying someone else to build it.
The engineer may know all about resonance and its effect on a structure, while his manager may be far more concerned with the financial aspects of everything.
Just do not overrate science. I have a bad tendency to do so.
It takes all types to make the wheel turn, an engineer by himself is just about as useful as a piston laying on the ground. Kinda useless unless its in an engine.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by hellcat on Wednesday July 09 2014, @12:01AM
So much of what passes as research really isn't - it's just a mashup of fancy words and confusing concepts.
There's so many holes in the abstract alone to make this worthless, that I wouldn't waste my time with the article.
And for what? What knowledge can this research presumably impart to any of us that would make our lives better? It's strongly in the "No shit Sherlock" category of news.
Bury it. Let's move onto something meaningful, and defund these bozos while we're at it.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday July 09 2014, @12:32AM
(Score: 1) by hellcat on Wednesday July 09 2014, @10:55AM
Here's the first sentence from the abstract: This study assesses two key types of knowledge assessments, factual and perceived knowledge, in the study of knowledge gaps.
First assumption that they're pushing in their argument is that there are (at least, only?) two types of knowledge assessments. Does this mean their ability to assess OUR knowledge, or someone else's? I know of no previous studies that lay the foundation of these "knowledge assessments."
Second, the rest of the phrase leads us to believe that they are using the term "knowledge assessment" as a form of personal characteristic among individuals - you and me, for instance. I don't know how you feel about your ability to "perceive knowledge" but I rather think that I "know" knowledge. I try to go the extra meter and put a fact value on every piece, but it doesn't always work. I pretty much NEVER label a piece of knowledge as "perceived" because ALL my knowledge is perceived. Perception is the only way I get anything through my thick skull.
Third, "knowledge gaps" means that they have some way to equate their two forms (highly dubious forms if you don't disagree with what I said earlier) in some linear / one-dimensional fashion. I find it hard to believe that anyone has become so comfortable with describing pieces of knowledge in such a way that they can be compared qualitatively, let alone quantitatively.
There's my impression of three holes in the first sentence of the abstract. Should I continue?
My point in my not-meant-to-be-a-troll comment was that there is an awful lot of social science research that we fund as a nation in which no true benefits accrue. I was part of this system (at Wharton) some 30 years ago and took private money, justifying it with our state-of-the-art "research" of the day. In the end it was fancy words, no definitions, no progress.
Science means a very rigorous method of learning, rigor in definitions, and the ability to discern natural phenomena in such a way that the facts can be replicated by anyone else, anywhere, anytime. This study does NOT meet that standard.
Sincerely,...
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday July 09 2014, @09:11PM
Ah, thank you! Specific criticism is better than wholesale dismissal. Now I can see you are not a troll, or a Juggaloo!
Couple points: I haven't gone beyond the abstract, so probably don't know enough the just the paper, but there are standards in social science, even if you have not heard of them. Perceived knowledge is a subjective phenomena, but one that can be tested on whether the perception is correct or not. The is up this alley. [wikipedia.org]
Second, science, pure science that is, is not to be judged on benefits or progress, even when it comes to funding. If we were to judge the value of scienfitic research before it has been done, we would be engaging in percieved knowledge, not factual knowledge!
(Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Wednesday July 09 2014, @07:56AM
IMHO this is instead very interesting, not in itself but in its motivation.
When science reaches the truth, that is, objective repeatable and consistent results, it does not matter how many people know it or whose class they belong to, they can't change the truth.
On the other hand, when science is just a propaganda term for biased or incomplete research, it matters.
Sometimes there are people in good faith trying to save the planet from those dumb unscientific voters: go right ahead but realize that dumb voters never mattered and never will, they are just justifying agendas, which means that the joke is likely on you.
(Score: 1) by hellcat on Wednesday July 09 2014, @11:13AM
The motives might be pure, but it's the methods I have a problem with.
And the agenda that "they" are serving goes both ways. Much of the alleged research done in these areas teaches us nothing.
I responded to aristarchus above in more detail, and at heart I agree with you.
(Score: 2) by khchung on Wednesday July 09 2014, @12:41PM
So much of what passes as research really isn't - it's just a mashup of fancy words and confusing concepts.
That is what happens when the result of scientific study got mangled by journalist who has no knowledge in the subject matter -- you get a mashup of fancy words and confusing concepts that passes for a news article. Obviously, only readers who already knew the subject are capable of untangling the mess and get out some hint of what the study was about and gain some new knowledge from it.
The solution is to fire those journalists and hire someone who is knowledgeable in the subject matter AND can write clearly, but those people costs too much! Hence, don't expect to learn anything from articles written by journalists.
(Score: 1) by Theophrastus on Wednesday July 09 2014, @12:04AM
which essentially states that political/religious background trump education and accepted reality (without regard to socioeconomic status):
When Beliefs and Facts Collide [nytimes.com]
(...Krugman later goes on to point out that this might explain inflexible failed views about Treasury practices)
(Score: 1) by hellcat on Wednesday July 09 2014, @12:12AM
It's not necessarily conflicting, even if we accept the remote possibility that both of these studies are correct.
One looks at the relationship between SES and scientific understanding. The other looks at 'religiosity' and understanding of basic biology.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 09 2014, @12:15AM
It's not conflicting at all. It's just a different piece of the whole. Yes people tend to see the world through their own ideological lenses. But when their ideology doesn't apply to the specific topic then other factors, like the ones in the study have an effect. Think of it like the Coriolis force - its the bias in the design of the toilet that has the most influence over which way the water vortex spins, but when the toilet is designed without any bias whatsoever, then the Coriolis force comes into play.
(Score: 2) by Theophrastus on Wednesday July 09 2014, @12:58AM
you are correct that i overstepped my statement about it being necessarily conflicting. as it turns out the Pew Research study did not (apparently) correct for economic factors. but i'll take some humble issue with your statement "It's not conflicting at all" - because we really don't know that either, and some of us might even suspect that there are cross-correlations between socioeconomic factors and those associated with religion and political alignment.
(Score: 2) by lhsi on Wednesday July 09 2014, @08:29AM
In the study in the article, they specifically chose a topic that did not have any political bias to avoid this sort of thing: