Meeting Abstract
To many people, we now live in a “post-evidentiary world” that rejects traditional forms of evidence and analysis in favor of preconceived dogma and culturally tribalized beliefs, whether in politics, health, education, social policy, or science. Declining acceptance of basic and applied scientific understanding has been documented for decades. But there are avenues for scientists and educators to address the underlying causes with the public, who remain largely confused about science as a form of knowledge. Scientific concepts can be explained better when listeners understand that science often uses words differently and comes to conclusions differently than other forms of human understanding do. In the Dover (PA) “Intelligent Design” trial of 2005, it was critical to convey to the presiding Judge how we think we know what we know, why method is the heart of science, why peer review is essential, why “theory” is the strongest concept in science and “fact” the weakest, why the “tentativeness” of science is not a weakness, why consilience is critical to reconstructing our knowledge of unrepeatable and complex phenomena, why science is restricted to the study of natural phenomena, and why “Intelligent Design” failed all those criteria. Scientists and educators, like public safety and health officials, can be more effective with prevention than with recovery: explaining what science is and isn’t, and how it works, fosters the essential elements of critical thinking from the classroom to the courtroom.
