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) 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: