1. Decision-relevant Science: How Do People Think About It? www.culturalcognition.net

2. 1.“Belief”/“disbelief” in evolution 2.Climate change risk perception (“fast & slow”) 3.Antibiotics: consensus, scientific & public It’s time for... “Public science comprehension—believe it or not!”

3. Half the population of the US “disbelieves” evolution...

4. but the half that “believes” in it isn’t any more likely to be able to explain “natural selection,” “genetic variance,” or “random mutation”... and being taught the “modern synthesis” doesn’t increase “belief” in evolution! Shtulman, A. Qualitative differences between naïve and scientific theories of evolution! Cognitive Psychology 52, 170-194 (2006). Bishop, B.A. & Anderson, C.W. Student conceptions of natural selection and its role in evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 27, 415-427 (1990). Demastes, S.S., Settlage, J. & Good, R. Students' conceptions of natural selection and its role in evolution: Cases of replication and comparison. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 32, 535-550 (1995). Lawson, A.E. & Worsnop, W.A. Learning about evolution and rejecting a belief in special creation: Effects of reflective reasoning skill, prior knowledge, prior belief and religious commitment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 29, 143-166 (2006).

5. but the half that “believes” in it isn’t any more likely to be able to explain “natural selection,” “genetic variance,” or “random mutation”... and being taught the “modern synthesis” doesn’t increase “belief” in evolution! Shtulman, A. Qualitative differences between naïve and scientific theories of evolution! Cognitive Psychology 52, 170-194 (2006). Bishop, B.A. & Anderson, C.W. Student conceptions of natural selection and its role in evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 27, 415-427 (1990). Demastes, S.S., Settlage, J. & Good, R. Students' conceptions of natural selection and its role in evolution: Cases of replication and comparison. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 32, 535-550 (1995). Lawson, A.E. & Worsnop, W.A. Learning about evolution and rejecting a belief in special creation: Effects of reflective reasoning skill, prior knowledge, prior belief and religious commitment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 29, 143-166 (2006).

6. 1.“Belief”/“disbelief” in evolution 2.Climate change risk perception (“fast & slow”) 3.Antibiotics: consensus, scientific & public It’s time for... “Public science comprehension—believe it or not!”

7. 2010 The public doesn’t understand the science necessary to assess valid evidence of climate change... 1994

8. and

9. and the public generally over-relies on cognitive heuristics to form perceptions of environmental and other forms of risk...

10. but

11. but the members of the general public who are most science literate and who score highest on measures of cognitive reflection

12. but the members of the general public who are most science literate and who score highest on measures of cognitive reflection (Kahneman’s “slow” reasoning)

13. but the members of the general public who are most science literate and who score highest on measures of cognitive reflection (Kahneman’s “slow” reasoning) are the most culturally and politically polarized on climate change!

14. 1.“Belief”/“disbelief” in evolution 2.Climate change risk perception (“fast & slow”) 3.Antibiotics: consensus, scientific & public It’s time for... “Public science comprehension—believe it or not!”

15. There is no meaningful level of public disagreement—cultural or otherwise—over whether someone who is seriously ill should seek medical treatment, and take antibiotics if a physician prescribes them...

16. but

17. but 50% of the general public believes that antibiotics kill viruses as well as bacteria!

19. 1.“Belief”/“disbelief” in evolution 2.Climate change risk perception (“fast & slow”) 3.Antibiotics: consensus, scientific & public It’s time for... “Public science comprehension—believe it or not!”

20. I.Individuals must accept as known more DRS than they can ever possibly understand. II.Individuals acquire the insights of DRS by reliably recognizing who has it. III.Public conflict over DRS is a recognition problem, not a comprehension problem. IV.The recognition problem reflects a polluted science communication environment. V.Acquiring the knowledge to protect the science communication environment from contamination is a critical aim of the science of science communication. Decision-relevant science (DRS) & public understanding: five theses

21. Cultural dissensus over scientific consensus

22. I.Individuals must accept as known more DRS than they can ever possibly understand. II.Individuals acquire the insights of DRS by reliably recognizing who has it. III.Public conflict over DRS is a recognition problem, not a comprehension problem. IV.The recognition problem reflects a polluted science communication environment. V.Acquiring the knowledge to protect the science communication environment from contamination is a critical aim of the science of science communication. Decision-relevant science (DRS) & public understanding: five theses

23. The polluted science communication environment: antagonistic cultural meanings

24. vs. The polluted science communication environment: antagonistic cultural meanings

26. The U.S. is culturally polarized over the risks and benefits of administering the HPV vaccine to schoolgirls (-boys too) to protect them from a sexually transmitted disease that causes a deadly form of cancer...

27. but the U.S. is not culturally polarized over the HBV vaccine, which is also administered to children to protect them from a sexually transmitted disease that causes a deadly form of cancer!

28. I.Individuals must accept as known more DRS than they can ever possibly understand. II.Individuals acquire the insights of DRS by reliably recognizing who has it. III.Public conflict over DRS is a recognition problem, not a comprehension problem. IV.The recognition problem reflects a polluted science communication environment. V.Protecting the science communication environment from contamination is a critical aim of the science of science communication. Decision-relevant science (DRS) & public understanding: five theses

29. The science of science communication: protecting the science communication environment

30. Decision-relevant science (DRS) & public understanding: five theses I.Individuals must accept as known more DRS than they can ever possibly understand. II.Individuals acquire the insights of DRS by reliably recognizing who has it. III.Public conflict over DRS is a recognition problem, not a comprehension problem. IV.The recognition problem reflects a polluted science communication environment. V.Protecting the science communication environment from contamination is a critical aim of the science of science communication.

31. Decision-relevant science (DRS) & public understanding: five theses I.Individuals must accept as known more DRS than they can ever possibly understand. II.Individuals acquire the insights of DRS by reliably recognizing who has it. III.Public conflict over DRS is a recognition problem, not a comprehension problem. IV.The recognition problem reflects a polluted science communication environment. V.Protecting the science communication environment from contamination is a critical aim of the science of science communication.

32. Decision-relevant science (DRS) & public understanding: five theses I.Individuals must accept as known more DRS than they can ever possibly understand. II.Individuals acquire the insights of DRS by reliably recognizing who has it. III.Public conflict over DRS is a recognition problem, not a comprehension problem. IV.The recognition problem reflects a polluted science communication environment. V.Protecting the science communication environment from contamination is a critical aim of the science of science communication.

33. Decision-relevant science (DRS) & public understanding: five theses I.Individuals must accept as known more DRS than they can ever possibly understand. II.Individuals acquire the insights of DRS by reliably recognizing who has it. III.Public conflict over DRS is a recognition problem, not a comprehension problem. IV.The recognition problem reflects a polluted science communication environment. V.Protecting the science communication environment from contamination is a critical aim of the science of science communication.

34. Ralph says: “Listen to Danny—and other scholars who are using science to improve science communication!”