Fundamentals of logic, reasoning, and argumentation: an evidence-supported curriculum targeting scientific literacy to increase public understanding and engagement in science

IF 1.6 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
La Shun L. Carroll, B.A., D.D.S., Ed.M.
{"title":"Fundamentals of logic, reasoning, and argumentation: an evidence-supported curriculum targeting scientific literacy to increase public understanding and engagement in science","authors":"La Shun L. Carroll, B.A., D.D.S., Ed.M.","doi":"10.4995/MUSE.2020.12787","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this article is to present an evidence-supported curriculum covering the fundamentals of logic, reasoning, and argumentation skills to address the emphasized basic knowledge, skills, and abilities required to be scientifically literate, which will prepare the public to understand and engage with science meaningfully.  An analytic-synthetic approach toward understanding the notion of public is taken using a theoretical biomimetics framework that identifies naturally occurring objects or phenomena that descriptively captures the essence of a construct to facilitate creative problem- solving.  In the present case, the problem being solved is how to reconcile what is meant by public, how it ought to be interpreted, determining the diverse levels of confidence in science that exist, and various understandings of science all with one another.  The results demonstrate there is an inherent denotative-connotative inconsistency in the traditional notion of public that can be explicated through the concept of a fractal allowing for comprehension of the relationship between public confidence in, and understanding of, science.","PeriodicalId":52061,"journal":{"name":"Multidisciplinary Journal for Education Social and Technological Sciences","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Multidisciplinary Journal for Education Social and Technological Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4995/MUSE.2020.12787","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to present an evidence-supported curriculum covering the fundamentals of logic, reasoning, and argumentation skills to address the emphasized basic knowledge, skills, and abilities required to be scientifically literate, which will prepare the public to understand and engage with science meaningfully.  An analytic-synthetic approach toward understanding the notion of public is taken using a theoretical biomimetics framework that identifies naturally occurring objects or phenomena that descriptively captures the essence of a construct to facilitate creative problem- solving.  In the present case, the problem being solved is how to reconcile what is meant by public, how it ought to be interpreted, determining the diverse levels of confidence in science that exist, and various understandings of science all with one another.  The results demonstrate there is an inherent denotative-connotative inconsistency in the traditional notion of public that can be explicated through the concept of a fractal allowing for comprehension of the relationship between public confidence in, and understanding of, science.
逻辑、推理和论证基础:以科学素养为目标的循证课程,旨在提高公众对科学的理解和参与
本文的目的是提供一个有证据支持的课程,涵盖逻辑、推理和论证技能的基础知识,以强调科学素养所需的基本知识、技能和能力,这将使公众准备好有意义地理解和参与科学。采用一种分析-综合的方法来理解公众的概念,使用理论仿生学框架,识别自然发生的物体或现象,描述性地捕捉结构的本质,以促进创造性地解决问题。在目前的情况下,要解决的问题是如何调和公众的含义,它应该如何解释,确定存在的对科学的不同程度的信心,以及对科学的不同理解。研究结果表明,在传统的公众概念中存在着内在的意指与内涵的不一致,这种不一致可以通过分形的概念来解释,从而理解公众对科学的信心与理解之间的关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
27.30%
发文量
12
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信