Andrew Sparrow
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
University of Otago Irrationality, Misinformation and the Role of Science Education in Science Communication. Andrew Sparrow A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Communication Centre of Science Communication, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand Date: July 2017 Abstract Human beings, as a species, are capable of both incredible scientific and technical achievements, but also of deep scientific denial. In late 2012 while the Curiosity rover descended from a “sky crane”, to make a soft landing on the surface of mars (NASA. 2012). many people were preparing for the end of the world, which they believed to have been predicted by the end of the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar (Hoopes 2011). This thesis aims to determine the factors contributing to the establishment and persistence of irrational beliefs, and attempts to identify a means of response through science education. Humans find patterns in random noise, ascribe agents, intentions and emotions to completely natural phenomena, and overestimate their control over random chance. When our beliefs are challenged we become uncomfortable considering that we may be wrong, as such a possibility clashes with our ideal perception of ourselves. Subsequently we are convinced by arguments that agree with our preconceptions, even if they are illogical. This is a major obstacle to the communication of accurate scientific information. A series of workshops, comprising two 50-minute sessions, were held to assess the benefit of specific education to communicating the rationale of the principles of science. The workshops were held for two classes of a primary school (P1a, P1b), and two high schools classes (H1, H2). The competency of the classrooms was assessed for both their theoretical understanding of the ideas being communicated, and their application of this knowledge to their own experiments. Additionally the students’ knowledge of the principles of scientific methods was measured prior to, and one month after the i workshops, through interviews with a subset of students. The study found that two classes (P1a and H2) were able to demonstrate an improved understanding of the scientific method after the workshop (p<0.01). However H2 demonstrated the lowest ability to apply an understanding of the scientific method to their own experiments. This result suggested that while the H2 students were able to recall the specific information communicated, they were not able to apply this knowledge to practice. Communicating accurate scientific information to adults may not be sufficient to have them reconsider their irrational beliefs. For this reason it is important for science educators to give children the skills to both reason rationally, and to be able to appraise the quality of evidence and information they are exposed to. This can be achieved by focusing on the stated objectives within the ‘Nature of Science’ section of the New Zealand Science Curriculum. However it would also be beneficial to students to understand the innate human cognitive phenomenon that leads people to accepting irrational beliefs. This knowledge will empower the students to challenge not only the arguments of other, but also the evidence their support their own beliefs upon. ii Acknowledgements I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to my supervisor Jean Fleming for all the patience, guidance, feedback and encouragement she provided through the entire process of this Masters’ thesis. Furthermore I would like to thank Kirsty McLachlan, Patricia Palmer and Amadeo Enriquez-Ballestero allowing me into their classrooms. Also, I like to thank all the students who participated in my workshops and interviews. I could not have finished this thesis without the support of my family and friends, thank you all for the encouragement, and for pretending to be interested. Lastly I would like to thank all the staff and students I had the pleasure of learning from, during my time at the University of Otago, Centre for Science Communication. iii Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 1.Irrationality ...................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 4 1.1 Language and trust ................................................................................................ 4 1.2 Superstition ............................................................................................................ 6 1.3 Design for intent ..................................................................................................... 9 1.4 Conformity ............................................................................................................ 11 1.4.1Role-playing and belief ................................................................................... 13 1.5 Fallibility of personal testimony ............................................................................ 14 1.5.1 Fallibility of experience .................................................................................. 15 1.5.2 Fallibility of memory ....................................................................................... 17 1.6Need for cognitive closure ..................................................................................... 20 1.6.1 Persistence of discredited information .............................................................. 23 1.7 Confirmation bias ................................................................................................. 24 1.7.1 Biased Acquisition of information ................................................................... 26 1.7.2 Biased Interpretation of information ............................................................... 27 1.8 Cognitive Dissonance .......................................................................................... 28 1.8.1 Insufficient justification effect ......................................................................... 30 1.9 Logical Fallacy ..................................................................................................... 32 1.9.1. Strawman argument ..................................................................................... 32 1.9.2. False dichotomy ............................................................................................ 33 1.9.3. Argument from ignorance ............................................................................. 33 1.9.4. Appeal to the masses ................................................................................... 34 1.9.5. Appeal to authority ........................................................................................ 35 1.9.6. Appeal to antiquity ........................................................................................ 35 1.9.7.Ad Hominem attack ....................................................................................... 36 1.9.8. Summary ...................................................................................................... 36 1.10 Conclusions. ...................................................................................................... 38 iv 2. Misinformation......................................................................................................... 40 2.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 40 2.1 Barriers to accessing ‘scientific’ information ......................................................... 41 2.2 Accuracy of traditional media ............................................................................... 42 2.2.1 Pseudoscientific television ............................................................................. 44 2.3.1 Implication to information access ................................................................... 46 2.4 Accuracy of online information ............................................................................. 47 2.4.1 Wikipedia ....................................................................................................... 49 2.5 Online social networks ......................................................................................... 51 2.6 Persuasive arguments ......................................................................................... 52 2.6.1 Anecdotal evidence ....................................................................................... 53 2.6.2 Celebrity Endorsement .................................................................................. 54 2.7 Motivations to distrust science ............................................................................. 55 2.8 Conclusions ......................................................................................................... 56 3. Role of Science Education ..................................................................................... 58 3.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 58 3.1 Response of science education ........................................................................... 59 3.1.1 What is being done ........................................................................................ 60 3.1.2 Issues ...........................................................................................................