The
relationship between the level of education and the level of trust placed in
science would most likely produce a strong linear correlation much of the time. Much of the material learned in history,
sociology, anthropology, math, physics, and, of course, biology classes has a
foundation based on information collected by scientifically researching
individual topics. However, in a recent
article from the American Sociological Association, a limit to this correlation
has been discovered. It seems that
education only goes so far in convincing individuals of the credibility of
scientific discoveries.
The article determined that much of
the doubt the public experiences towards science is rooted in political,
cultural and sociological factors that may not agree with empirically founded
evidence. An example of such a limit is
the concept of creationism. Although I
do not claim to have a good (let alone decent) understanding of the argument
for the creation of the Earth and the human race, it is often a highly debated
topic due to the opposition it creates against the scientifically founded
concept of evolution, and the 4.54 billion year-old age of the Earth. Although there is concrete evidence (carbon
dating and genetic studies) of an old earth (as opposed to the creationist
theory of a ‘young earth’), religious influences often prevent many American
citizens from accepting data that is scientifically founded in favor of a
theory that has no concrete evidence.
Science, as
many know it, is thought of mostly as the study of biological phenomena. However, scientific studies can pertain to
almost any avenue of research, whether it is biologically related or not. The scientific part of doing research of any
kind is the use of strict mediating rules that necessitate the use of controls
for comparison, a hypothesis to test, an experiment to test this hypothesis,
and a method to analyze the data to form a conclusion from it; otherwise known
as the scientific method. The scientific
method is a general protocol used to investigate phenomena, acquire new
knowledge, or to correct and integrate previous knowledge. This method ensures that conclusive data is
needed to make scientifically founded conclusions. It is this unbiased nature of science that
makes it a threat to unfounded, one-sided religious and political views. To quote the article, “In the political
sphere, the credibility of scientific knowledge is tied to cultural perceptions
about its political neutrality and objectivity, which are crucial social
resources for building consensus in ideologically polarized policy arenas.”
Although it
is clear to me that scientifically supported conclusions are the only ones
worth considering, it is not possible to convert all of those that do not believe in
science due to longstanding religious, cultural and societal opinions. Therefore, when writing news articles about
politically, culturally, religiously, and sociologically relevant topics, it is
important to consider the opinions of the general public and to write with as
little bias against any opinion, and to instead aim to convey news in a method
that displays its relevance to everyday life, not as openly contradictory to
certain other opinions. Although I do
not believe this approach is an appropriate means to become a better science
writer (science writing does not consider opinions that are not scientifically
founded), it will prove to be the most effective means by which scientific
topics can be conveyed to anyone that may read them.
ASR rticle can be viewed at this hyperlink:
No comments:
Post a Comment