• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Public understanding of science >Lay Americans' views of why scientists disagree with each other
【24h】

Lay Americans' views of why scientists disagree with each other

机译：美国人对科学家为何不同意的看法

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

A survey experiment assessed response to five explanations of scientific disputes: problem complexity, self-interest, values, competence, and process choices (e.g. theories and methods). A US lay sample ( n = 453) did not distinguish interests from values, nor competence from process, as explanations of disputes. Process/competence was rated most likely and interests/values least; all, on average, were deemed likely to explain scientific disputes. Latent class analysis revealed distinct subgroups varying in their explanation preferences, with a more complex latent class structure for participants who had heard of scientific disputes in the past. Scientific positivism and judgments of science’s credibility were the strongest predictors of latent class membership, controlling for scientific reasoning, political ideology, confidence in choice, scenario, education, gender, age, and ethnicity. The lack of distinction observed overall between different explanations, as well as within classes, raises challenges for further research on explanations of scientific disputes people find credible and why.
机译：一项调查实验评估了对科学争端的五种解释的回应：问题复杂性，自利，价值，能力和过程选择（例如理论和方法）。作为对争端的解释，美国外行样本（n = 453）没有将利益与价值区分开来，也没有将能力与过程区分开来。对流程/能力的评价最高的是可能性，对利益/价值的评价最低。平均而言，所有人都被认为有可能解释科学争端。潜在类别分析显示了不同的亚组，他们的解释偏好各不相同，对于过去曾听说过科学纠纷的参与者而言，潜在类别的结构更为复杂。科学实证主义和科学信誉的判断是潜在的阶级成员身份的最强预测指标，控制着科学推理，政治意识形态，对选择的信心，情景，教育，性别，年龄和种族。总体上，在不同的解释之间以及班级之间缺乏区分，这为进一步研究人们认为可信的科学争议及其原因提出了挑战。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号