Advertisement

Understanding and Trusting Science

  • Matthew H. SlaterEmail author
  • Joanna K. Huxster
  • Julia E. Bresticker
Article
  • 29 Downloads

Abstract

Science communication via testimony requires a certain level of trust. But in the context of ideologically-entangled scientific issues, trust is in short supply—particularly when the issues are politically ‘entangled’. In such cases, cultural values are better predictors than scientific literacy for whether agents trust the publicly-directed claims of the scientific community. In this paper, we argue that a common way of thinking about scientific literacy—as knowledge of particular scientific facts or concepts—ought to give way to a second-order understanding of science as a process as a more important notion for the public’s trust of science.

Keywords

Science communication The social structure of science Consensus 

Notes

References

  1. Almassi, B. (2012). Climate change, epistemic trust, and expert trustworthiness. Ethics & the Environment, 17(2), 29–49.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, E. (2011). Democracy, public policy, and lay assessments of scientific testimony. Episteme, 8(2), 144–164.Google Scholar
  3. Bernauer, T. (2013). Climate change politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 16(1), 421–448.Google Scholar
  4. Bird, A. (2010). Social knowing: The social sense of ‘scientific knowledge’. Philosophical Perspectives, 24(1), 23–56.Google Scholar
  5. Bodmer, W. (1985). The public understanding of science: Report of a Royal Society ad hoc group endorsed by the Council of the Royal Society. London: The Royal Society. http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/1985/10700.pdf.
  6. Boyd, K. (2017). Testifying understanding. Episteme, 14(1), 103–127.Google Scholar
  7. Brossard, D., & Nisbet, M. C. (2006). Deference to scientific authority among a low information public: Understanding U.S. opinion on agricultural biotechnology. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 19(1), 24–52.Google Scholar
  8. Brulle, R. J. (2014). Institutionalizing delay: Foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations. Climatic Change, 122(4), 681–694.Google Scholar
  9. Carmichael, J. T., Brulle, R. J., & Huxster, J. K. (2017). The great divide: Understanding the role of media and other drivers of the partisan divide in public concern over climate change in the USA, 2001–2014. Climatic Change, 141(4), 599–612.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-1908-1.Google Scholar
  10. Coady, C. A. J. (1992). Testimony. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582–601.Google Scholar
  12. Diethelm, P., & McKee, M. (2009). Denialism: What is it and how should scientists respond? European Journal of Public Health, 19(1), 2–4.Google Scholar
  13. Dunlap, R. E., & McCright, A. M. (2010). Climate change denial: Sources, actors and strategies. In C. Lever-Tracy (Ed.), Routledge handbook of climate change and society. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Dunlap, R. E., & McCright, A. M. (2011). Organized climate change denial. In J. S. Dryzek, R. B. Norgaard, & D. Schlosberg (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of climate change and society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Elgin, C. Z. (2006). From knowledge to understanding. In S. Hetherington (Ed.), Epistemology futures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Elgin, C. Z. (2007). Understanding and the facts. Philosophical Studies, 132(1), 33–42.Google Scholar
  17. Fiske, S. T. (2012). Managing ambivalent prejudices: Smart-but-cold and warm-but-dumb stereotypes. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 639(1), 33–48.Google Scholar
  18. Fiske, S. T., & Dupree, C. (2014). Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 111(4), 13593–13597.Google Scholar
  19. Goldman, A. (2001). Experts: Which ones should you trust? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 63(1), 85–110.Google Scholar
  20. Gould, S. J. (1999). Take another look. Science, 286(5441), 899.Google Scholar
  21. Grimm, S. (2006). Is understanding a species of knowledge? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 57(3), 515–535.Google Scholar
  22. Grimm, S. (2012). The value of understanding. Philosophy Compass, 7(2), 103–117.Google Scholar
  23. Hardwig, J. (1985). Epistemic dependence. The Journal of Philosophy, 82(7), 335–349.Google Scholar
  24. Hills, A. (2009). Moral testimony and moral epistemology. Ethics, 120(1), 94–127.Google Scholar
  25. Huxster, J. K., Landrum, A. R., & Slater, M. H. (unpublished manuscript). Understanding the scientific enterprise: Development and validation of a novel scientific literacy measure (SSSI).Google Scholar
  26. Huxster, J. K., Slater, M. H., Leddington, J., et al. (2018). Understanding “understanding” in Public Understanding of Science. Public Understanding of Science, 27(7), 756–771.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662517735429.Google Scholar
  27. Jamieson, K. H. (2018). Crisis or self-correction: Rethinking media narratives about the well-being of science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 115(11), 2620–2627.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708276114.Google Scholar
  28. Jasanoff, S. (2014). A mirror for science. Public Understanding of Science, 23(1), 21–26.Google Scholar
  29. Jasny, L., Waggle, J., & Fisher, D. R. (2015). An empirical examination of echo chambers in US climate policy networks. Nature Climate Change, 5, 782–786.Google Scholar
  30. Kahan, D. M. (2015). What is the “science of science communication”? Journal of Science Communication, 14(3), 1–12.Google Scholar
  31. Kahan, D. M. (2017). ‘Ordinary science intelligence’: A science-comprehension measure for study of risk and science communication, with notes on evolution and climate change. Journal of Risk Research, 20(8), 995–1016.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2016.1148067.Google Scholar
  32. Kahan, D. M., Maggie Wittlin, D., Braman, P. S., et al. (2012). The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change, 2, 732–735.Google Scholar
  33. Keren, A. (2007). Epistemic authority, testimony and the transmission of knowledge. Episteme, 4(3), 368–381.Google Scholar
  34. Keren, A. (2014). Trust and belief: A preemptive reasons account. Synthese, 191(12), 2593–2615.Google Scholar
  35. Keren, A. (2018). The public understanding of what? Laypersons’ epistemic needs, the division of cognitive labor, and the demarcation of science. Philosophy of Science, 85(5), 781–792.Google Scholar
  36. Kitcher, P. (1990). The division of cognitive labor. Journal of Philosophy, 87(1), 5–22.Google Scholar
  37. Kitcher, P. (2001). Science, truth, and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Kitcher, P. (2011). Science in a democratic society. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Press.Google Scholar
  39. Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  40. Kvanvig, J. (2003). The value of knowledge and the pursuit of understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Lackey, J. (2008). Learning from words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Laugksch, R. C. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84(1), 71–94.Google Scholar
  43. Leiserowitz, A., Edward, M., Connie, R.-R., et al. (2016). Climate change in the American mind: March, 2016. Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT: Yale Program on Climate Change Communication.Google Scholar
  44. Leiserowitz, A. A., Maibach, E. W., Roser-Renouf, C., et al. (2013). Climategate, public opinion, and the loss of trust. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(6), 818–837.Google Scholar
  45. Lipton, P. (1998). The epistemology of testimony. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 29(1), 1–31.Google Scholar
  46. Lombrozo, T., Anastasia, T., & Michael, W. (2008). The importance of understanding the nature of science for accepting evolution. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 1(3), 290–298.Google Scholar
  47. Ludwig, D. (2014). Extended cognition in science communication. Public Understanding of Science, 23(8), 982–995.Google Scholar
  48. McCright, A. M., Charters, M., Dentzman, K., et al. (2016). Examining the effectiveness of climate change frames in the face of a climate change denial counter-frame. Topics in Cognitive Science, 8(1), 76–97.Google Scholar
  49. McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2011). The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001–2010. The Sociological Quarterly, 52(2), 155–194.Google Scholar
  50. Miller, J. D. (1983). Scientific literacy: A conceptual and empirical review. Daedalus, 112(2), 29–48.Google Scholar
  51. Miller, J. D. (2004). Public understanding of, and attitudes toward, scientific research: What we know and what we need to know. Public Understanding of Science, 13(3), 273–294.Google Scholar
  52. Miller, J. D. (2010a). The conceptualization and measurement of civic scientific literacy for the twenty-first century. In J. Meinwald & J. G. Hildebrand (Eds.), Science and the educated american: A core component of liberal education (pp. 241–255). Washington, D.C.: American Academy of Arts and Sciences.Google Scholar
  53. Miller, J. D. (2010b). Adult science learning in the internet era. Curator, 53(2), 191–208.Google Scholar
  54. Miller, B. (2013). When is consensus knowledge based? distinguishing shared knowledge from mere agreement. Synthese, 190(7), 1293–1316.Google Scholar
  55. Miller, J. D., & Inglehart, R. (2012). Public attitudes toward science and technology. In S. B. William (Ed.), Leadership in science and technology: A reference handbook (pp. 298–306). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Inc.Google Scholar
  56. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224–240.Google Scholar
  57. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2009). Scientific Literacy. In D. R. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), Handbook of research on literacy (pp. 271–285). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  58. NRC, The National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  59. Odenbaugh, J. (2012). Climate, consensus, and contrarians. In W. P. Kabasenche, M. O’Rourke, & M. H. Slater (Eds.), The environment: Philosophy, science, and ethics (pp. 137–150). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  60. OECD. (2007). PISA 2006: Science competencies for tomorrow’s world. Vol. 1: Analysis. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.Google Scholar
  61. Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. M. (2010). Merchants of doubt. New York: Bloomsbury Press.Google Scholar
  62. Pettit, P. (2006). When to defer to majority testimony—and when not. Analysis, 66(3), 179–187.Google Scholar
  63. PISA. (2012). Results from PISA 2012: United States. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.Google Scholar
  64. Roberts, R. C., & Jay Wood, W. (2007). Intellectual virtues: An essay in regulative epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Shamos, M. H. (1995). The myth of scientific literacy. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Shen, B. S. P. (1975). Science literacy. American Scientist, 63(3), 265–268.Google Scholar
  67. Slater, M. H., Huxster, J. K., Bresticker, J. E., et al. (2018). Denialism as applied skepticism. Erkenntnis.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-018-0054-0.Google Scholar
  68. Smith, N., & Leiserowitz, A. (2012). The rise of global warming skepticism: Exploring affective image associations in the united states over time. Risk Analysis, 32(6), 1021–1032.Google Scholar
  69. Snow, C. P. (1959). The two cultures and the scientific revolution. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Snow, C. E., & Dibner, K. A. (Eds.). (2016). Science literacy: Concepts, contexts, and consequences. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  71. Strevens, M. (2003). The role of the priority rule in science. The Journal of Philosophy, 100(2), 55–79.Google Scholar
  72. Strevens, M. (2008). Depth. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Takahashi, B., & Tandoc, E. C. (2016). Media sources, credibility, and perceptions of science: Learning about how people learn about science. Public Understanding of Science, 25(6), 674–690.Google Scholar
  74. Thomas, G., & Durant, J. R. (1987). Why should we promote the public understanding of science? Scientific Literacy Papers, 1, 1–14.Google Scholar
  75. Torcello, L. (2016). The ethics of belief, cognition, and climate change pseudoskepticism: implications for public discourse. Topics in Cognitive Science, 8(1), 19–48.Google Scholar
  76. van der Linden, S. L., Leiserowitz, A. A., Feinberg, G. D., et al. (2014). How to communicate the scientific consensus on climate change: Plain facts, pie charts or metaphors? Climatic Change, 126(1–2), 255–262.Google Scholar
  77. van der Linden, S. L., Leiserowitz, A. A., Feinberg, G. D., et al. (2015). The scientific consensus on climate change as a gateway belief: Experimental evidence. PLoS ONE, 10(2), e0118489.Google Scholar
  78. Wilkenfeld, D. A., Plunkett, D., & Lombrozo, T. (2016). Depth and deference: When and why we attribute understanding. Philosophical Studies, 173(2), 373–393.Google Scholar
  79. Zagzebski, L. T. (2001). Recovering understanding. In M. Steup (Ed.), Knowledge, truth, and duty: Essays on epistemic justification, responsibility, and virtue (pp. 235–251). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  80. Zagzebski, L. T. (2012). Epistemic authority: A theory of trust, authority, and autonomy in belief. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyBucknell UniversityLewisburgUSA
  2. 2.Environmental StudiesEckerd CollegeSaint PetersburgUSA
  3. 3.Department of Medical PhysicsDuke UniversityDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations