Not Only Why but Also How to Trust Science: Reshaping Science Education Based on Science Studies for a Better Post-pandemic World

Abstract

Many authors blame postmodernism and studies on Sociology and Anthropology of Science (Science Studies) for the rise of relativism and anti-science movements. Despite such criticism, Science Studies have always been concerned with the construction of the common world (a shared reality), while the anti-science movement goes in the opposite direction, denying science to defend economic and political interests of specific groups. In this sense, the post-truth movement is part of a political agenda and therefore science education will not be able to face the dilemmas of such scenario unless it takes a clear political stance. Thus, our objective is to present a discussion on why we should trust science as well as what it means to trust science precisely from the so-called ontological turn of science studies. We argue that, based on this sociological framework, it is possible to recognize the value of science as a community capable of producing networks and actors that mobilize the world and that respond to day-to-day problems. Next, we discuss the fact that trusting in science does not mean blind trusting specialists. It is necessary to increase the participation of different actors in the construction of the common world , especially by calling into debate those who were made invisible in the process of colonialism. Finally, we argue that recovering confidence in science is a political process, in a way that public opinion can only changed by politically organizing the field of science and science education.

Exploring the Role of Multiplist Epistemic Beliefs on COVID-19 Conspiracies and Prevention Among Undergraduates

“…Therefore, it becomes critical for science education to provide students with frameworks to evaluate the veracity of the information presented by experts and to present the scientific process as science in action whereby educators are transparent about the controversies and uncertainties that emerge in science theory building (see Lima & Nascimento 2022 ). In other words, and consistent with Cobern et al’s ( 2022 ) point, it would be judicious for science educators to discuss with students that just because scientific knowledge may be subject to revision based on new/emerging evidence, this does not inherently make it untrustworthy or undermine its value for advancing scientific knowledge.…”

“…The targeted use of misinformation seems to be on the rise (e.g., interference in the 2016 U.S. election; the validity of the 2020 U.S. election), and we will need individuals willing to critically explore and accept scientific findings as we begin to tackle global crises such as climate change and future public health events. Moreover, as recently pointed out by other researchers (Lima & Nascimento, 2022 ), traditional science education may need to expand to not only include the skills to critically evaluate the quality of scientific information, but should also be guided by the psychology of persuasion to communicate scientific truths convincingly to the general public.…”

A Future Trend for Science Education: A Constructivism-Humanism Approach to Trans-Contextualisation

“…In line with the interviewees' responses, there is literature agreement that promoting socio-scientific decision-making within the classroom lacks the mechanism by which the learner can implement socio-scientific decisions in a real-world situation [20]. Furthermore, while from a motivational consideration, science conceptual learning and a meaningful socio-scientific decision-making component can be addressed within the classroom via SSI [42], there is support for addressing action, related to the societal concern, that requires a vision of science education going beyond the classroom context [36]. In addressing vision III through promoting science education to encompass sustainable development at a societal level, it is recognised that science learning needs to incorporate actions at both personal and societal levels [28][29][30][31].…”

“…Multiple science educators advocate a constructivist, in particular a social constructivist, approach to science teaching and learning [34][35][36][37]. Constructivism is considered advantageous, as students learn by constructing science conceptualisations influenced by prior experiences [14], often meaningfully stemming from a social, or cultural context [38,39].…”

Superando Narciso

“…Por fim, uma vez que a pedagogia antinarcísica se afasta das concepções extrativista e vislumbra futuros distantes da sociedade de consumo, pautada na hedonia, ela também fomenta a possibilidade de uma reflexão e de uma vivência mais profundas, que traga sentido existencial para as práticas, tornando a sala de aula um campo de construção coletiva, com propósito. Essa vivência reforça a perspectiva da eudaimonia, viabilizando o cultivo de valores e do bem-estar, Nathan Willig Lima e Andreia Guerra uma prática que está intimamente associada com as origens da própria pedagogia (Lima, 2022). A própria vivência das histórias das ciências tem por objetivo o cultivo dessa experiência e do desenvolvimento de performances que permitam a construção de outros mundos (Guerra e Moura, 2022).…”