Session Q6: Science Literacy, the Nature of Science and Religion

The Development of Civic Scientific Literacy in the United States

Civic scientific literacy (CSL) refers to the ability to read and make sense of scientific constructs presented at the level found in the Tuesday \textit{New York Times} or to view and make sense of scientific explanations at the level presented in a Nova television show. The CSL index is content neutral (individuals who accept climate change and individuals who have doubts about it could demonstrate an acceptable of scientific literacy by demonstrating a command of the basic scientific constructs that underlie these arguments) and source neutral (print, broadcast, Internet, museums, or other sources). This paper utilizes data from the 2008 cycle of the Longitudinal Study of American Youth (LSAY) to identify the factors associated with the development of CSL in young adults in their mid 30's. Building on more than two decades of national cross-sectional studies of CSL in the United States (Miller, 1983, 1987, 1995, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2004, 2010), this analysis uses a set of structural equation models to examine the relative influence of home and parental factors, pre-college science and mathematics courses, college-level science and mathematics courses, work experiences, religious beliefs, and involvement in scientific and technological issues in the political arena on the development of CSL. The results confirm the importance of college science courses - especially for non-STEMM majors - in the development of CSL. The results indicate that college science courses are valuable for college non-STEMM majors because of (1) the substantive content understanding produced by the course experience and (2) the utility of a command of these basic constructs in making sense of current and policy-relevant science information in more sophisticated public media. \\[0pt] References: \\[0pt] Miller, J.D. 1983. Scientific Literacy: A Conceptual and Empirical Review. \textit{Daedalus} 112(2):29-48. \\[0pt] Miller, J.D. 1987. Scientific Literacy in the United States. In Evered, D. \& M. O'Connor (Eds.), \textit{Communicating Science to the Public}. London: Wiley. \\[0pt] Miller, J.D. 1995. Scientific Literacy for Effective Citizenship. In R.E. Yager (Ed.), \textit{Science/ Technology/Society as Reform in Science Education}. New York: State University Press of New York. \\[0pt] Miller, J.D. 1998. The Measurement of Civic Scientific Literacy. \textit{Public Understanding of Science}, 7:1-21. \\[0pt] Miller, J.D. 2000. The Development of Civic Scientific Literacy in the United States, in Kumar, D.D. \& Chubin, D. (Eds.), \textit{Science, Technology, and Society: A Sourcebook on Research and Practice}. New York: Plenum Press. Pp. 21-47. \\[0pt] Miller, J.D. 2001. The Acquisition and Retention of Scientific Information by American Adults, in Falk, J.H. (Ed.), \textit{Free-Choice Science Education}. New York: Teachers College Press. Pp. 93-114. \\[0pt] Miller, J.D. 2004. Public understanding of, and attitudes toward scientific research: what we know and what we need to know. \textit{Public Understanding of Science} 13:273-294. \\[0pt] Miller, J.D. 2010 [in press]. The conceptualization and measurement of civic scientific literacy for the 21st century. In, Hildebrand, J. G. and Meinwald, J. (Eds.), \textit{Science in the Liberal Arts Curriculum}. Cambridge, MA: American Academy of Arts and Sciences.   

How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future

The vast majority of Americans do not see the ways in which science holds relevance in their lives, and too many scientists are unable to explain why our work matters. Meanwhile, partisan politics, a new media environment, and religious ideologies have magnified the growing rift between science and mainstream American culture. Science should be a value shared by all, but it will take far more than political will to bridge what C.P. Snow once described as a ``vast gulf of mutual incomprehension'' between scientists and everyone else. The scientific community must find new ways of reaching out or we will fail to influence the public, inform the decision-making process, and rise to meet the greatest challenges of the 21st century.   

Addressing the Public About Science and Religion

Attacks on the integrity of science teaching in our public schools have recently become increasingly threatening. Geology and Darwinian evolution are the primary targets and cosmology is at risk. Up to now, the Supreme Court has excluded teachings based on religion from public schools for constitutional, not scientific, reasons. But now the incumbent Supreme Court seem less committed to strict separation of church and state than were their predecessors, and federal courts are beginning to judge the science itself. In this situation, we need to create a climate of public opinion favorable to the protection of good science by explaining the issues both to students and to others. I have been trying to do that by addressing audiences such as church groups, other community groups, and high school and college classes. I do not seek to convert committed anti-evolutionists. I am trying to inform the reasonable majority who do not really know what science is and does, or what a theory is and how we know when it's right, or why we tell them that all knowledge is provisional but still insist that we are teaching the right science. Many have been advised by their religious teachers that there is no conflict between science and their religious beliefs but do not see how that can be. I try to explain how they are disjoint discussions. I also discuss the likely consequences for our country if we degrade the teaching of science in the public schools. My audiences have generally been receptive. Here I will relate some lessons I have learned from my experience with such talks. Without doubt, the most important lesson is that most Americans have religious beliefs that are important to them and are willing to consider what I say only because they know I respect their beliefs. This work was partially supported by the U.S. Dept. of Energy, Office of Nuclear Physics, under contract DE-AC02-06CH11357.   

Increasing our understanding of how science really works

``Most Americans do not understand the scientific process," nor can they distinguish between science and non-science (National Science Board, 2006). Given the impact of science on society, the lack of public understanding of science should be a concern to us all. In large part, the current confusions about evolution, global warming, and other aspects of science are symptomatic of a general misunderstanding of what science is and what it is not. Too few of our citizens view science as a dynamic process through which we gain a reliable understanding of the natural world. As a result, the public becomes vulnerable to misinformation and the very real benefits of science become obscured. In response, an NSF- funded initiative has emerged to improve public understanding about how science really works, why it matters, and who scientists are. \textit{Understanding Science}, a collaborative project developed by the UC Museum of Paleontology, serves to both inspire and engage students in the dynamic nature of science. The ``scientific method'' within our textbooks is an impoverished depiction that does little to promote scientific literacy. If we are aiming for a public capable of assessing conflicting representations of scientific evidence in the media, they must understand the strengths, limitations, and basic methods of the enterprise that has produced those claims. While many teachers recognize the weakness of the standard pedagogical approach to these fundamentals of science literacy, until now they lacked any comprehensive resource to help them strengthen their own knowledge and teaching.   

Physics Literacy for All Students

Physics teachers must broaden their focus from physics for scientists to physics for all. The reason, as the American Association for the Advancement of Science puts it, is: ``Without a scientifically literate population, the outlook for a better world is not promising.'' Physics for all (including the first course for scientists) should be conceptual, not technical. It should describe the universe as we understand it today, including special and general relativity, quantum physics, modern cosmology, the standard model, and quantum fields. Many science writers have shown this is possible. It should include physics-related social topics such as global warming and nuclear weapons, because citizens need to vote on these issues. Above all, it should emphasize the scientific process and the difference between science and nonsense. Science is based not on beliefs but rather on evidence and reason. We should constantly ask ``How do we know?'' and ``What is the evidence?''