Hey all, this is something that's been on my mind lately and I want to hear your thoughts.
I've noticed, and I'm sure many of you have noticed, the rampant scientific illiteracy out there in the world, and it's easy to find on the internet [1]. But why? And what can we do to help?
These are a couple of possibilities off the top of my head:
1. The barrier for entry is too high. It's already hard enough to get the basics of a new field down if you're an undergrad, and extremely difficult if you don't have access to classroom education on the subject. But even assuming you have the basics, to understand current research you need to be reading journal articles, talking with people in the field, reading conference papers/posters, etc. This is all quite costly when most journals are paywalled and conferences are expensive as hell. But even setting aside cost, it took years of reading journal articles for me to start reading them efficiently, and if I'm reading something from a field that's not my own it still takes a while to acclimate. Not to mention the start-up costs of finding the literature in the first place. Pouring hours upon hours of effort into this probably isn't worth it if you're not actively working in the field.
2. It takes too much time to become familiar and stay familiar with a field. This is partially because of (1): learning the basics of a field and its terminology takes a long time, and in general reading journal articles is time-consuming. But even assuming that you've already put in months of time to get up to speed with some field, who wants to spend a large amount of time staying up to date? If you have a lot of diverse interests, this immediately becomes intractable.
As for ideas on how to help, I'm not really sure. I have a feeling that getting people to read good review papers would be a nice start, but making them publicly available and easy to find seems like a big challenge.
I'd love to hear your thoughts & ideas!!
[1] For example, I was on Reddit earlier today and someone brought up neural oscillations. Someone commented with a link to a blog post claiming to know where the "central alpha generator" is. From having read much of the peer-reviewed oscillations literature myself, the field can't even agree on whether oscillations are a real phenomenon or just an epiphenomenon resulting from spiking activity, let alone agree that there is some central generator! Agghhh /rant
People usually refer to Thomas Jefferson as the last Renaissance Man. It's been a long time since any one person could have a breadth and depth understanding of the world; one of those hard-to-verify factoids is that a person living today has been exposed to as much "information" (however you choose to define it) in a day as a person living in the 1800s saw in a lifetime. So there will never be a reasonable case where a randomly-selected person will be literate about any given scientific subject. With any luck they'll have a basis of knowledge but it's a moving target; I'm not ancient but I'll bet you learned there were six kingdoms of in biology while I learned 5. I learned 9 planets, my kid will learn 8. The age of the universe has shifted by 50% since I first learned it (if I'm not mistaken - yet another example where "literacy" moves) and when I was a kid, Weekly Reader told me that I'd die of acid rain and no ozone layer. Nowadays it's global warming. I still remember when GRID became AIDS and it'd kill you really dead but Magic Johnson has been living with it for what? 20 years? The important thing, from my point of view, isn't "literacy" per se but sophistication. We need people to be able to look at a news report and parse out that it's a sensationalist headline generated by one anecdotal study conducted by a grad student at an obscure university. We need people to be able to evaluate that one side of the debate is anchored by the World Health Organization and the other by Jenny McCarthy... and everything that means. We need everyone to grasp that just because there are two opinions does not mean they have equal weight. It's not how much science you know it's how much science you can evaluate.
I agree with you to a certain extent, especially in regards to the points caeli brought up, but I feel that both of you are taking a general level of literacy for granted that I'm just not sure is there. I can't speak for the rest of the world, but there are a large percentage of Americans that are not only scientifically illiterate, but take a perverse pride in it.
I agree with you that reading trade journals is beyond ridiculous for the average person. I find it frustrating that so many adults have willfully forgotten pretty much all the science they were supposed to learn in highschool. I really feel that of you stopped a person on the street and asked them to give a brief overview of the scientific method and what it's important most people wouldn't be able to answer and may very well argue that it's not important. So I think my argument is opposite of caeli's. I think there's an over emphasis on teaching science facts and calling that literacy, while there's no real effort to give a solid foundation on how and why science is done. The atomic weight of carbon is useless for most people, but the critical thinking skills that scientists use can be put to use just about anywhere.
You're doing a good job of proving my point... when we get down to it, your frustration isn't so much about literacy as it is about rigor. These are people who, by your reckoning, had a basic literacy but are choosing to disregard it. In other words, it's not their lack of basis that bugs you, it's their adherence to dogma. I'd argue that insisting on reading this paper or that enforces dogma without enforcing the ability to evaluate the underlying subjects of discussion. On the other hand, striving for a basis of not just understanding but the methods of understanding automatically raises the level of discourse. I agree- the atomic weight of carbon is useless for most people. But the ability to judge the veracity of a statement on the revision of the atomic weight of carbon is priceless.
That's what I originally meant in my post, and I probably am being too over-zealous! I just think it's not okay for people to vehemently believe (& spread to other people) something from a field that they have no familiarity with. If someone's going to be shouting their views when there is plenty of empirical research they haven't read, then I think they need to read that empirical research, at the very least a recent review paper. It seems that often when actual primary research is linked in a comment thread, people insist they're still right or just ignore it altogether.
Yeah, that's nonsensical. Sorry. No kinder way to put it. You're saying that people shouldn't be able to discuss that episode of Cosmos about black holes unless they've read Kip Thorne's original research. This is a ridiculous standpoint. Stephen Hawking didn't write A Brief History of Time because he wanted to try something without a lot of math, he wrote it to popularize science. The entire approach of science educators should be to demistify and broaden the appeal of exciting but not-necessarily-accessible research so that people can, say, support the Superconducting Supercollider over the ISS because the SSC would have actually done research. You don't need to read a scientific paper about the likely weight of the Higgs Boson to have an opinion as to whether or not it's worth spending $8b finding it. Primary research is NOT intended for rhetorical pyrotechnics, nor is it intended for policy decisions. Primary research is intended to broaden the knowledge base of experts so that those experts can advise non-experts. Throwing original research into an internet pissing match simply shows that you don't know how to convince your audience - if you did, you'd explain why that original research makes your point instead of writing "RTFM n00b."
I think it's one thing to tell someone a cool factoid about black holes you learned from Cosmos. But it's something else entirely to make strong claims about some aspect of black holes (or vaccines, or climate change, etc) and insist you're right to the death when you haven't read any of the literature. These are the situations I was thinking of when I made the original post. Haha, true! I do have to admit I've been guilty of this (although hopefully with better language ;)). I could certainly stand to improve my public science communication skills.You're saying that people shouldn't be able to discuss that episode of Cosmos about black holes unless they've read Kip Thorne's original research.
Throwing original research into an internet pissing match simply shows that you don't know how to convince your audience - if you did, you'd explain why that original research makes your point instead of writing "RTFM n00b."
Where I'm at: The most important thing is to have a firm understanding of what you know about black holes, where you learned it, and how trustworthy any new information about black holes you hear is likely to be. The trick is to be able to dilute Nature down to 9gag. It can be done, and the winners are the ones who are willing to do it. Be willing to do it.
Oh, god I could go off on this for hours. I do science outreach in the Bible belt, astronomy mostly. But I do help explain physics to groups of adults as well. And I always end on "So now, why do we need to know this? Why do we care?" and ask the room for the why's. The best ones are the evolution questions. Why do we need to know about evolution and genetics? because politicians are making laws based on this stuff. Having a surface level knowledge, that basic building block to go and google what they are saying and be able to tell woo from reality is what we need to prevent bad laws. (In theory). Do you know what a GMO is? Do you, UNDERSTAND what a GMO is? Could you explain it to grandma? Could you explain it with humor and empathy when they start rattling on about what Uncle Harvey read on that one website? I am literate. But I could not sit here an explain why Slaughterhouse 5 is an important book. I could not go into depth about why we still read and revere Shakespeare. But I can tell when I being trolled and messed with. I also drive a car 20-30,000 miles a year. I can change oil and take it in for repairs when the engine light comes on. I have a base knowledge of how a car works, but if I ever had to fix one myself I'd be screwed. The best example of what I am trying to convey is with computers. I try to educate people enough so that they develop a "Hey, wait a second here" response to when something is just... off. Teaching people how to use Adblock, for example. They don't know how it works, only that they don't get the weird popups and slowdowns any more. They don't know what Windows Updates are, only that they are important and I need to apply them. Is that enough to be literate? or do you need to be a programmer to claim that title? I take the idea that "literate" is like a vaccine. You still get sick when vaccinated, but you don't get sick enough to spread the bad stuff to others. A little bit of education on how things work is all it takes to help people out in the end.
Excellent reply!
Having enough surface understanding to be able to apply common sense to a subject is literacy.
Knowing about it enough to teach it is mastery. The more people know the better, which is why we need to try harder to perpetually achieve a higher standard of education. Not just in the U.S., but in the third world as well.
The average American doesn't even know why they had to take science in high school. There are millions of functional illiterates in this country. I mean it sucks that people can't think critically or think The Doctors coming on ABC at 11AM have anything important to say but you're kinda asking a lot given my experience with humans. People who are against vaccination have that opinion based on fear. People are emotional, not analytical. Climate deniers work purely on this level, bringing economic conspiracy to a message based in scientific reality. Science isn't intuitive and most people think it's a class they got a 'C' in so asking them to build on skills they never learned is an exercise in frustration. I'm cynical as hell but we're fucked. Unless the scientists save us again.
This is not entirely the case. Might I suggest Drive by Dan Pink? He does a great job of comparing climate skepticism with vaccine skepticism and demonstrates that both are iterations of the exact same thought process from different ends of the political spectrum. Neither process is irrational, and neither viewpoint is "based on fear." It works more like this: 1) I align with this tribe. 2) This tribe holds these beliefs. 3) These beliefs are justified with the following facts. 4) These facts are in doubt, but my allegiance to my tribe is not. Therefore, our tribe is under attack. 5) Our tribe is under attack, therefore our remaining facts are all the more important. 6) I am a member of a besieged tribe with certain inalienable truths that are under constant attack by THE OUTSIDER. This is how you go from "I read this Andrew Wakefield study and it sounded bad" to "doctors are trying to poison my kid with mercury" as a rational, thinking being. In order to get out of the rut, you have to go to (7) and (7) is a stone cold bitch: 7) Everything I have so fervently believed for so long is wrong. I have lost faith with my tribe and am alone in the world. I must now find a new tribe and something new to believe, but there is no one to trust. How could I have been so wrong? Making it even harder, people trying to make it from (6) to (7) hear - you're a fucking idiot - you have no respect for facts - you're a conspiracy theorist - you're endangering my children - and working to leave them a bleaker world. ...'cuz you may not be a member of the tribe anymore, but that outsider? He's a dick.People who are against vaccination have that opinion based on fear. People are emotional, not analytical.
Hey there, Caeli. This topic of yours, is to me, one of the most fascinating and frustrating. While I do believe that there is a lot of actual scientific illiteracy, contemporary research has been challenging many of our previous misconceptions within science communication in many counter-intuitive ways. For example, when we look at issues such as anti-vaccination, climate change denial, and so on, research shows that such notions are often held by educated and intelligent people. Such findings contrast the scientifically-illiterate stereotype. We are finding that factors such as beliefs and values are immensely important -- sometimes more important than facts themselves. Consider how difficult it is to convince someone of something if those facts are contrary to a worldview or social circle belief. Accepting some facts can cause social isolation and alienation. Really, education is important for deeper understanding, but basic science literacy isn't so difficult to grasp. Often it's a strong start to just teach some basic research skills and inspire enough interest to use those skills. People can always go deeper into knowledge, but we don't all need to spend years in every subject to grasp the most relevant information for our personal lives or to get a reasonable sense for differentiating accurate information. PNAS has a good intro with their collection of free literature on science communication:
1
2 Check out Dan Kahan et al. as well. His work shook some of my preconceived notions.
Thanks so much for the recommendations! I now have lots of fun reading for the summer :).PNAS has a good intro with their collection of free literature on science communication: 1 2
Check out Dan Kahan et al. as well. His work shook some of my preconceived notions.
If you want more, feel free to ask when you're ready. There are some very intriging studies that have re-shaped and challenged some previously established views and these are interesting times in the science of science communication. I don't want to overload you, so if something from PNAS catches you and you want to follow a specific trail, come back and ask me a few questions and I'll see if I have something for you. Edit: To clarify, I mean I don't want to overload you with things that might not be interesting to you.
Short answer. Long answer: What you seem to describe is not scientific illiteracy. It's called running's one mouth or bullshitting. While that's also not very pleasant, there can be multiple reasons. What I consider to be scientific illiteracy is not understanding the more simple things: the water cycle, evolution, Newton's three laws of motion, the basics of radiation, basic chemistry. Stuff we were supposed to have learnt in high school (but that people didn't because of a poor curriculum, religion or X other reason). And due to how quickly and powerfully science is changing our world, I find it to be completely unacceptable to have no basis in science and mathematics whatsoever today. It is even more unacceptable if it is wilful - because of laze, beliefs or otherwise. And a LOT of accidents/events could be avoided with these - less chemical-related deaths, most people would most likely drive a lot more carefully, and they might not picket nuclear reactors under the basis of "OMG RADIATION". They might care more about the impact of our industries.
That knowledge is important and I won't argue such concepts aren't important in understanding science, but I also want to raise the idea that science literacy might be better described by the "how" such concepts are learned rather than exactly what is learned. Similar to learning language and literature, there are always new concepts to learn, and that's a part of being literate, but it's the underlying tools and strategies that really define someone as literate. There are many people who can absorb and communicate facts. When called upon, they can provide the "correct" answer. Unfortunately, such recitation sometimes only mimics literacy because it doesn't bring with it the essential understanding that extends onto other areas. Science literacy, to me, is best demonstrated when someone does not know a concept, but sufficiently applies strategic scientific inquiry to get an answer. The concepts you mention are better seen as ideas we can cut our teeth on to gain better understanding of how science can be done.
People should have at least the absolute minimal foundational knowledge, i.e. highschool level. Coupled with that though, needs to be learning the process, the scientific method, and learning how to apply it. Unfortunately many people seem to think of "science" as a bunch of facts irrelevant to their daily lives when it is just as much a process and a way to understand the world. What it really comes down to though, I think, is a loss of curiosity and wonder. Children are great at this: "why is the sky blue?," but something seems to get lost as people grow older. If people kept this curiosity and coupled it with critical thinking skills and the ability to evaluate evidence and accept the fitting conclusions then we'd be much better off. People need the ability to reevaluate what they know. Sometimes you are wrong, and that's ok! Scientists are wrong all the time, but that's how you get closer to being right: you eliminate possibilities until you are left with an explanation that you can't disprove. That explanation will have to do until somebody comes up with a better explanation. Then, you have to know whether you should accept that new explanation or not. How do you do this? That's what scientific literacy should enable.
I find it very rewarding surrounding myself with people who set out to see where they are wrong. I am disappointed that we do live with quick access to information, but we aren't in the habit of checking things out before communicating them as facts. I would love to see a cultural shift that socially rewarded people who admitted when they were wrong rather than rewarding people for stubborn and superficial confidence. I also wish it wasn't such a taboo to politely point out that someone's facts are likely mistaken and to suggest further research.People need the ability to reevaluate what they know.
I think that it gets (metaphorically) beaten out of them. "Mommy, why is the sky blue?" "Mommy doesn't know, quit asking such stupid, useless questions!" American society is anti-intellectual to an extreme, almost pathological, degree and acts very negatively towards anything without an immediate, concrete, practical, and most especially PROFITABLE, use.What it really comes down to though, I think, is a loss of curiosity and wonder. Children are great at this: "why is the sky blue?," but something seems to get lost as people grow older. If people kept this curiosity and coupled it with critical thinking skills and the ability to evaluate evidence and accept the fitting conclusions then we'd be much better off.
This a thousand times this. People out here have no curiosity about how the world works. Or they don't until you hit them with the view through a telescope, or a random conversation about how atoms work and they then ask you "How does that work?" One of the big things that I miss about living in California is how people were interested in things. Not always a good thing to be (UFOs, antivaxx etc) but at lest there was something there that they went on their own and researched. Maybe this is why I hang out on the internet more than outside.What it really comes down to though, I think, is a loss of curiosity and wonder. Children are great at this: "why is the sky blue?," but something seems to get lost as people grow older. If people kept this curiosity and coupled it with critical thinking skills and the ability to evaluate evidence and accept the fitting conclusions then we'd be much better off.
Interesting, OP, I was reading about neural oscillations a few weeks ago: http://voyteklab.com/neural-communication-jazz-not-symphony/ I've found it's easy (enough) to find dense scientific literature online, it's just a matter of searching the right way, which takes practice. I can find complex dissertations on quantum mechanics, neuroscience, biology, semiotics, linguistics, astrophysics and so forth. Also, youtube can be awesome for this kind of thing. The frustrating thing about trying to find quality scientific literature online: 1) I find when doing the initial search, I run into a LOT of websites that are geared for the average reader. 3rd grade, 5th grade, elementary school reading level. They also repeat themselves a lot (a trick writers use to help readers understand things). It takes me a bit of work to wade past all of that to find actual scientific papers, with college level and higher reading levels. 2) There are people writing papers and blog posts that have no idea what they're talking about. People who deliberately troll. People who propagandize, try to shape public opinion, political or moral agenda. And just bad writing in general. So many science articles I come across purport to discuss a complicated scientific topic, but out of 7 paragraphs, there's one sentence of actual information. The rest is baggage and filler. This last part requires skepticism, knowledge of cognitive fallacies, and the ability to recognize these things.
Brad Voytek is awesome! I just took a grad seminar with him on oscillations this year, which is why I have all this random knowledge about it. Such a cool guy, and he's also very interested in public dissemination. Yeah, I agree that this is a problem. Plus, these kinds of websites often are about providing basic information, not about the nuances of some field. Headline results always need to be taken with about a bucket of salt, but you never hear about it and just get a nice simple story. Yup. Super annoying when people read these and then just take the author's word for it and consider it definitive evidence for their viewpoint. It would be fantastic if there were some sort of in-between -- like a mini-review article, but with less jargon and more clear explanations and discussion about the field's standards, methodology, etc.I find when doing the initial search, I run into a LOT of websites that are geared for the average reader. 3rd grade, 5th grade, elementary school reading level. They also repeat themselves a lot (a trick writers use to help readers understand things). It takes me a bit of work to wade past all of that to find actual scientific papers, with college level and higher reading levels.
There are people writing papers and blog posts that have no idea what they're talking about. People who deliberately troll. People who propagandize, try to shape public opinion, political or moral agenda. And just bad writing in general. So many science articles I come across purport to discuss a complicated scientific topic, but out of 7 paragraphs, there's one sentence of actual information. The rest is baggage and filler.
I completely agree with your 1 and 2 points about what is going on. As a high school science teacher for the last 10 plus years I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about this topic and have basically arrived at the same conclusion you have. What really got me thinking about this topic, from an educational angle, was studying the “standards” and curriculum that the states and nations require our students to “learn”. They are basically nothing but long lists of trivia and vocabulary that are quickly forgotten, easily googled, and basically irrelevant to our students lives. So I had to ask myself what was the point of teaching this stuff to my students. And then I arrived at the real question this entire thread is getting at: “what are they (students, people, etc) going to do or be able to do with this level of knowledge or understanding.” My answer was, nothing. As you point out in your 2 points, only after graduate level work do you really begin to understand a field and in order to keep that understanding, you must continue to “keep up with the literature.” This is obviously impossible, especially for the breadth of knowledge needed to deal with all the various science topics a person might run into in their lifetime. So you are left with an inadequate understanding of virtually all science topics, for the purposes of actually putting that knowledge to use in most circumstances. Personally, I think we should shoot for some kind of “science appreciation” type of class, where students feel comfortable and maybe even interested in science and develop the ability to ask useful science questions about things they want/need to know about and are ok with relying on or trusting actual scientists in those fields to provide answers at the time those answers are needed. Basically, people have virtually no choice but to “trust the experts” if they want to get any useful knowledge out of the fields of science. The challenge is developing that trust between the public and the actual people who do and know the science. And yes, understanding and exploring how science works is probably ONE of the most effective ways to accomplish that, but it’s not the only thing that’s needed. This topic, the purpose and meaning of “science literacy”, has been studied and expounded upon for over a century. There are many papers and books by scientists, educational researchers, science education researchers, and others about this topic going back well over 100 years, with most of today’s positions simply being rehashings of older views. I’ll leave you with one blog post link from the UK, which I think does a decent job of introducing some of the issues. If you want some more sources, I would be happy to provide them. http://doctoralicebell.blogspot.com/2010/08/myth-of-scientific-literacy.html
Science education is incredibly important. The why I think you've highlighted pretty well. Science isn't straightforward to understand. Science Journalism dumbs it down, but it's also often sensationalized as fuck so isn't worth reading. I help with this through my time spent moderating on /r/science. We think that AMAs (Ask Me Anythings) done with scientists is the best way to engage people in science through the Internet. By making the interaction personal and seeing the lure of receiving pointless internet points people tend to get much more engaged than otherwise. We've had some really interesting guests visit to answer people's questions. We're planning to have an AMA with Stephen Hawking very soon, which the ongoing drama within Reddit hopefully hasn't put in jeopardy.
Yes, I am a huge fan of them!! I appreciate all you guys do. I heard about the Stephen Hawking ama during all the drama and I have to say I'm very excited. It seems like blogging is starting to catch on a bit in science, and while sometimes the posts are very obviously targeted at people in the field, there are some that are much more general and would be great for the general public. It would be nice if these were more popular among people because I suspect they aren't really seen outside the field.
To add to what others have said here: I think it's definitely partially possible to apply general analytical thinking with some familiarity with a field and maybe it's gotcha's (We cured cancer in a petri dish!). Plenty of primary publications have been written for a scientific audience, and are often more proof / evidence / argument than theory. But if you want to answer "what do scientists think of this popular science topic" and see some of the logic behind it, you can definitely find people who can communicate towards a general audience. For more niche topics, I think a layman could make out the less-jargony literature, but it would take a bit of time investment, not just a matter of skimming the paper like it's a blog post.
I think the big issue is that the amount of factual and theoretical knowledge we have has exploded exponentially over the past 400 years. As late as the 1500s a sufficiently intelligent person could know everything known in their own society at least on a basic level. Today there is just so much stuff out there that no one can even know a tiny fraction of the sum of human knowledge.
I'll have to disagree with you a bit on what you said. Scientific literacy is very very important, and I think the world would be a much better place if people where, in general, more scientifically literate (no more global-warming deniers, eh, americans?). However, I feel like one does not have to have the understanding that an undergraduate has of a field to be scientifically literate in that field, nor does a person need to have all the correct terminology. In my opinion, all that is needed is a general change the people's spirits regarding their thinking. People, in general, lack critical and scientific thinking. What I think could help is an "addon" to education that focused on the scientific way of thinking: of accepting new ideas, and of testing them, and of seeing the results for your won eyes instead of taking other's words for it. In my mind, if people in general and a little bit more of critical thinking and of scientific reasoning the world would be a better place, and everyone would be happier. I don't need (nor want) everyone to have an amazing understanding of a ton of scientific fields, all I want is for people to have an open and critical spirit capable of changing their ideas and beliefs when confronted with new information.
Let's test this opinion to see if the evidence supports it meaningfully. Do you have some peer-reviewed literature that makes a strong case for your opinion? I understand that this is an easy assumption to make, but are you basing your opinion on actual research, or upon your intuitions? Next, what recommendations do contemporary researchers make who study these areas? Are they really saying that critical thinking skills ought to be the main focus? Where does this emphasis on critical thinking skills fit in with modern rebuttals to the Information deficit modelIn my opinion, all that is needed is a general change the people's spirits regarding their thinking. People, in general, lack critical and scientific thinking.
This is pretty much what I'm saying, tbh.Really, education is important for deeper understanding, but basic science literacy isn't so difficult to grasp. Often it's a strong start to just teach some basic research skills and inspire enough interest to use those skills. People can always go deeper into knowledge, but we don't all need to spend years in every subject to grasp the most relevant information for our personal lives or to get a reasonable sense for differentiating accurate information.
Cool, thanks for clarifying. Please allow me to use some of your previous comments as a springboard. I think that people often over-generalise and forget that an individual might not think so critically in one area of their life, but do think critically in other regards. Critical-thinking is certainly a skill that can be practised and improved, but the way I look at it is that most people have something to tap into. For instance, instead of simply dismissing an anti-vaccinationist as stupid or illiterate, I would try to find a way to use their current motivated skepticism on other issues that might not be so guarded by strong beliefs, then work from there. The thing is, pretty much everyone has their own blindspots. Bill Nye was previously taking an anti-GMO stance, but could we say he lacked critical thinking? Perhaps in one way, but the main strategy was getting him to extend his critical thinking to some of his other beliefs and assumptions. Therefore, to me, I don't think the main issue is a lack of critical thinking, but rather an issue of helping each other be more aware and conscious of our beliefs, biases, and worldviews.
That is true. Thinking about it, you see a lot of people who have very good critical thinking in their area of knowledge but fail in areas they don't know much about. If we generalize and take that to mean that critical thinking arises from knowledge, we can't force everyone to have knowledge about everything so they can think critically about it. But a scientific mindset, and specifically the scientific method and philosophy of the science doesn't require you to have any concrete knowledge about a subject, or any subject, to be able to apply it. I feel (note the use of feel, which implies intuition and not a research backed opinion) that just knowledge about how science in general works, and of the scientific method and how it is used to learn about the world would help a lot of people have a much more open mind to new ideas, and more importantly to give importance to research, instead of dismissing it.
Yes, very good thoughts. For me, I see science as strategic thinking before I see it as a collection of knowledge. There are some very basic thinking tools that near anyone can use, even children, and further scientific concepts are additional pools to draw upon. Often, people do have an intuitive experience with natural phenomena, and that relationship is accurately perceived, but analytical scientific reasoning provides another lens through which to look. Such a lens can give deeper insights, and importantly, challenge false assumptions. For instance, nudging children into applying scientific inquiry on why they think the sky is blue is a great introduction to some important science concepts. Anyway, thanks for the chat!