Holly VandeWall (Boston College), Margaret Turnbull (Boston College), Daniel McKaughan (Boston College)
In a democratic system non-experts should have a voice in research and innovation policy, as well as in those policy issues to which scientific and technological expertise are relevant – like climate change, GMOs and emergent technologies. The inclusion of non-expert voices in the debate is both a requirement for truly democratic process and an important counter to the kinds of jargon and group-think that can limit the perspective of more exclusively expert discussions.
For non-experts to participate in a productive way does require a certain degree of scientific literacy. Yet in our present place of intensive specialization, access to understanding any one subfield or subdiscipline in the sciences requires years of study. Moreover, the relevant sort of literacy involves not simply familiarity with factual information, but some perspective on the goals, methods and practices that constitute knowledge formation in the scientific disciplines.
We have spent the last decade developing a syllabus, readings, and tools for teaching science literacy through the history and philosophy of science. These include assemblage of appropriate primary and secondary course materials, creation of cumulative assignments, developing technology resources to connect students to key events and figures in the history of science, and implementation of assessment methods that focus on skill and concept development rather than fact memorization or problem sets. Our poster will showcase these tools and provide attendees with specific suggestions for similar course practices they can implement at their own institutions.
In particular, we have found that coursework that familiarizes students with the how practices of knowledge formation in the sciences have developed over time has helped our students to:
1. Recognize that the methods of science are themselves developed through trial and error, and change over time.
2. Understand that different disciplines of science require different approaches and techniques, and will result in different levels of predictive uncertainty and different standards for what is considered a successful hypothesis.
3. Consider examples of scientific debate and processes through which those debates are resolved with the advantage of historical perspective.
4. Trace some of the unintended effects of the sciences on society and to identify where the social and cultural values of the scientists themselves played a role in their deliberations – and whether or not that had a negative epistemic effect.
