Untangling Trustworthiness and Uncertainty in Science

Author:

Covitt Beth A.ORCID,Anderson Charles W.

Abstract

AbstractThis article focuses on uncertainty—ways in which scientists recognize and analyze limits in their studies and conclusions. We distinguish uncertainty from (un)trustworthiness—ways in which scientific reports can be affected by conscious deception or unconscious bias. Scientific journal articles typically include analyses and quantifications of uncertainty in both quantitative forms (e.g., error bars, ranges of predictions, statistical tests) and qualitative forms (e.g., alternate hypotheses, limitations of studies, questions for future research). These analyses of uncertainty are often incorporated into reports from scientific organizations and responsible scientific journalism. We argue that a critical goal of science education should be to help students understand how science may be employed as an uncertain and limited, yet still useful tool for informing decisions about socioscientific problems. When members of the public are insufficiently prepared to understand analyses and quantifications of uncertainty, the consequences are manifest in public skepticism about science and inadequately informed decision-making about socioscientific issues. We describe current design work in science education that includes a worthwhile emphasis on helping students to recognize and leverage uncertainty in their own data and models. Additional important work can enable students to develop proficiency in seeking out and understanding analyses of continuing uncertainty in media accounts of scientific conclusions and predictions.

Funder

National Science Foundation

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Education

Reference126 articles.

1. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Images of nature of science in middle grade science trade books. New Advocate, 15(2), 121–127.

2. Covitt, B. A., Harris, L., & Anderson, C. W. (2013). Evaluating scientific arguments with slow thinking. Science Scope, 37(3), 44–52.

3. Covitt, B. A., Berkowitz, A., Boone, R., Caplan, B., Cooper-Wagoner, J., Gunckel, K. L., Jahnke, M., Love, G., Marino, D., & Moore, J. (2020, March). Developing and validating a learning progression for computational thinking in Earth and Environmental Systems Sciences. Paper presented at NARST, Portland, OR. https://narst.org/conferences/2020-annual-conference (Conference cancelled).

4. Covitt, B. A., Parker, J., Kohn, C., Lee, M., Lin, Q., & Anderson, C.W. (2021). Understanding and responding to challenges students face when engaging in carbon cycle pool-and-flux reasoning. Journal of Environmental Education, 52(2), 98–117.

5. Carbon TIME. (2021). Cross-unit teaching tools: Questions-connections-questions reading strategy. https://carbontime.create4stem.msu.edu/cross-unit-teaching-tools-questions-connections. Accessed 30 Mar 2021

Cited by 9 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3