science literacy

By teaching critical thinking skills early, we can stop a lot of nonsense before it begins.
Not everyone needs to have a graduate level understanding of science. However, gaining scientific literacy is a process of equipping oneself with tools that augment decision-making in every aspect of life -- from making health-care decisions, to evaluating government policies.
When it comes to scientific topics, both scientists and laypeople hide behind the excuse that the general public in this country simply doesn't have the education to process such complex information. This is leading to real problems.
"For conservatives and liberals alike, negative emotions and motivated resistance led participates to lower their trust in
During Monday's broadcast on the QVC shopping network, host Shawn Killinger and designer Isaac Mizrahi found themselves in
Our story of the cozy partnership between political leaders and the fossil fuel industry now moves to Wyoming, where the state has moved to block the efforts by 26 states to modernize the science curriculum taught in our nation's schools.
Children grow up healthier and happier when they experience a direct connection to nature. Just as importantly, those young people are also far more likely to value the natural world when they've developed a connection to it. The need for this has never been greater than it is today.
The oxygen we breathe, the water we drink and the sugar we eat are all chemicals. But somehow "chemical" has become a dirty word, synonymous with "toxin," and "chemical-free" is now a popular, albeit nonsensical, advertising slogan.
We can analyze this paper and the findings the way we might analyze a basketball loss. In basketball, we see only the game being played on the court. In research, we can only read the paper and interpret the data we are given.
We must bridge the gap between the science we value and where we are now. We know that education is the starting place -- improving science education in the schools, and improving access to higher education for all. It's not enough, however.
In the battle against climate change, Latinos are in the line of fire. And our musketeers are our scientists.
Apparently, scientific information, no matter how solid, is unable to persuade a good many people of the reality of climate change. At the same time we're finding that less objective (and less scientifically valid) types of information can affect people's views.
I didn't like this question: "What gas do most scientists believe causes temperatures in the atmosphere to rise?" Why was it posed in a way that fuels the perception that this is simply a matter of opinion (or even worse, "belief")? Shame on Pew.
Is science literature an essential tool for democratizing research, or is it a relic of a pre-internet age?
One reason you don't want to have politicians mucking around in the nuts and bolts of science is that they often have a shaky grasp of the science at best.
In the scientific world, we live by the tenet "association does not assume causation." That is, just because two things happen to be related, does not mean that one caused the other.
Further "education" on climate science alone is unlikely to make inroads with people who have already decided that climate change is not real or not human-induced.