Part A.  Your Understanding of Science: Evaluating Scientific Claims

Your ability to critically evaluate claims made by reporters, politicians, insurance sellers, advertisers, and others is an important skull you will be able to use the rest of your life.  It is a skill particularly vital to scientists.  To help you apply your understanding of science, you will use a five-step framework for evaluating claims.

Read the short article "Some dogs are not a child's best friend" (Science News, June 1994) in an Appendix of your Course Manual.  Now work through each of the five steps described below.

Step 1:  Identify a specific claim and restate it clearly.  Determine its importance.

In addition to simply identifying the claim, ask:

• What are possible alternative views?
• What are consequences of the claim being right or wrong?

Step 2: Identify evidence relevant to the claim.

Step 3:  Evaluate the quality of the evidence you have found.  Some types of evidence are more convincing than others.

The best scientific evidence is a fact or measurement of something that actually exists or has occurred (e.g., an experimental result or an observation of nature).  Such evidence must be attributed to a reliable source (e.g., a specific scientist or an article in a professional scientific journal).  You may need to find the original journal article to determine whether the evidence is being reported fairly and accurately by the article's author.
Other evidence that might have a bearing on your acceptance or rejection of a claim may include:

• "Anecdotal" evidence
• An opinion of a respected person with professional experience in the area where the claim is made.
• The claimant's point of view.  (How does the claim affect the claimant?)
• A reasonable opposing claim.  (Is there evidence for the opposing claim?)

How valuable are each of the types of evidence listed above?

Step 4:  Evaluate the validity of the claim:

• If the evidence supports the claim - conditionally accept the claim.
• If the evidence contradicts the claim - do not accept the claim.
• If the evidence is insufficient - do not accept the claim.

Step 5:  Summarize the reasoning you used to evaluate the claim.

• Summarize the directly relevant evidence and explain how it supports or contradicts the claim.  If the evidence is insufficient, provide a specific example of additional information you need to critically evaluate the claim.

As a class, we will discuss your evaluations of the validity of the article's claim.  We will then consider some actual responses submitted to the editor of Science News in response to the published article.

Part B.  Distinguishing Science from Non-science

You had some experience with scientific thought and investigative processes in previous coursework and have most likely developed your own personal understanding of what defines science and non-science.  Assignment 2 is designed to help the class, as a whole, develop a concise understanding of the terms:  science, the nature of science, and scientific methodologies.  As you discuss these and other terms, members of the class will also develop criteria to distinguish between science and non science.

First, to help you better understand how science is actually conducted and some of the common misconceptions about science, you will view a 5-minute video.  The video helps you understand what terms such as "theory" mean to scientists,  in contrast to what they mean in a lay-person's language.  Click on the icon below and select Video 1. 

Isn't Evolution just a Theory?

Based on the class discussion and your work on evaluating the scientific claims in the article on dog bites, and your viewing of the video about the Dover trial regarding the teaching of intelligent design, you will now develop explicit statements of what you think distinguishes science from non-science.

Divide yourselves into groups of four students.  As a group, discuss one of the pairs of the following terms.  Each set of terms must be discussed by at least one group.  As you discuss the terms, prepare a set of written criteria that characterize and distinguish each term.  You will present your criteria to the rest of the class. 

basic definitions of science
the characteristics of science

the scientific method or methodologies
what kinds of ideas can not be considered science

basic definitions of science 
the scientific method or methodologies

the characteristics of science
what kinds of ideas can not be considered science

Presenting

As groups, take turns presenting your criteria on the topics you selected for discussion.  After you have finished your presentations, as a class develop a set of agreed upon criteria that the entire class will use for the basic definition of science, the characteristics of science, scientific methodology, and what kinds of ideas can not be considered science.  Debates about the meanings of the differing terms may continue until one set of criteria is accepted by the class as a whole.

Once an agreed upon perspective is established, write it down  in your notebooks.  These terms and their meanings will be useful to you as you continue through this class.  

Part C.  Distinguishing Fake from Real News

An important component of being able to distinguish science from non-science is being able to determine the validity of information, whether that be verbal (e.g., TV, YouTube, podcasts) or written (published journals, popular magazines, online sources). Although young people are fluent in social media, most of them fail to effectively evaluate the credibility of online information (e.g., Wineburg et al., 2016).

In order to help solve complex problems in the world, societies, and your personal lives you must be able to find accurate and reliable information. We are living at a time that many people believe is unprecedented. Much recent discussion focuses on how to find information that is trustworthy, especially information related to political events and scientific issues such as climate change and use of renewable and nonrenewable resources. Because of the central role of social media and online news as sources of information, you will focus on how to identify fake information and find trustworthy information online. The goal is for you to become proficient in evaluating social media through thoughtful engagement in information seeking.

First, you will complete a self-quiz to help you know your own ability to interpret information found on the internet. Write down answers to the questions on the powerpoint that your instructor presents. After the students complete their individual answers, then we will discuss the questions and answers as a class.

Next, you will focus on the motivation behind fake news. Why would a person devote the time and effort necessary to produce convincing fake news? Watch the video linked below and then answer the following questions:

• Did anything surprise you about the fake news creator?
• What did the video/article reveal about fake news?
• Is fake news something to worry about? What is the potential impact(s) of fake news on society? 

A Fake News Creator Says....

Wineburg, Sam and McGrew, Sarah and Breakstone, Joel and Ortega, Teresa. (2016). Evaluating Information: The Cornerstone of Civic Online Reasoning. Stanford Digital Repository. Available at: http://purl.stanford.edu/fv751yt5934