The central role of fallacious thinking in science education

‘Should We Kill the Grey Squirrels?’ A Study Exploring Students’ Justifications and Decision-Making

“…This idea is in line with Zeidler's (1997) (Zeidler, Sadler, Simmons & Howes, 2005). Studies in science education have shown (a) that there is a gain in the learning of content knowledge as a result of engaging in a consideration of SSI (Applebaum, Barker & Pinzino, 2006;Pedretti, 2003;Zohar & Nemet, 2002); (b) that SSI can serve as an effective context to help students understand the nature of science (Khishfe & Lederman, 2006) since amongst others it is through this process the students understand that some science is tentative, and there is ambiguity even in some scientific knowledge; (c) SSI can help students find links between science and society, and can be used as a way to develop citizenship; and (d) there is evidence that SSI can enthuse students and drive them into discussions around scientific issues (Levinson, 2008).…”

Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education

“…This research underscores the importance of developing students' views about science through argumentation in the constructions of shared social knowledge via discourse about SSI (e.g., . While many science educators acknowledge the importance of rich and diverse classroom discussions in the promotion of scientific literacy (Aikenhead, 1985(Aikenhead, , 2000Driver, Newton, & Osborne, 2000;Vellom, 1999;Zeidler, 1984Zeidler, , 1997Zeidler, Lederman, & Taylor, 1992), those who seek to study it have difficulty locating substantive argumentation or classroom discussions in school (Newton, Driver, & Osborne,1999), or find the quantity and quality of discussion with explicit focus on science content very low (Levinson, 2003). Perhaps this is because teachers find it difficult to implement sustained student discourse with confidence because of the complex nature of argumentation.…”

“…Additional considerations entailing fallacious argumentation have been identified and explored (i.e., validity concerns, naïve conceptions of argument structure, effects of core beliefs on argumentation, inadequate sampling of evidence altering representation of argument and evidence) and serve as a reminder of the complex nature of discourse involving SSI (Zeidler, 1997;. However, the value of argument in the development of moral reasoning has been amply demonstrated in the research literature (Berkowitz & Oser, 1985;Berkowitz, Oser, & Althof, 1987;Keefer, 2002;Keefer, Zeitz, & Resnick, 2000) in terms of creating dissonance thereby allowing opportunity for re-examining one's beliefs and thought-processes.…”

In Pursuit of Consensus: Disagreement and legitimization during small-group argumentation

“…For example, in a secondary analysis of studies examining confirmation bias, cognitive scientists Mercier and Sperber (2011) demonstrate that an individual's ability or willingness to engage with counterevidence is largely dependent on the arguer's goals for the argumentative discussion, concluding that "…contrary to common bleak assessments of human reasoning abilities, people are quite capable of reasoning in an unbiased manner, at least when they are evaluating arguments rather than producing them, and when they are after the truth rather than trying to win a debate" (p. 72, emphases added). Zeidler (1997) similarly suggests that individuals are likely to respond to counter-arguments in non-rational, or fallacious, ways in order to protect their core beliefs. As such, individuals might not engage productively with counter-arguments and evidence so that they do not need to revise their pre-conceived and closely held beliefs.…”