Rodriguez 1

River Rodriguez

PSY123

Doctor Field

Common Knowledge, Facts, and Understanding

There is a certain lense through which information is viewed by society. Oftentimes what

is ​factual​ differs substantially from what is ​known. ​There are many persistent beliefs in the

public consciousness, things best summed up as “widely-believed facts”, and when these get

challenged they can often lead to friction between those willing to accept new information and

those who cling to an older way of understanding. There is often a gap between what researchers

learn about the world and how that information is conveyed to and digested by the larger

populace. By extension, those who primarily deal in analyzing data and conducting experiments

can sometimes lose sight of how best to convey their findings to a general audience. This essay

will discuss what constitutes “understanding”, why certain facts are accepted while others are

rejected, and how common knowledge can conflict with the truth.

First, let us examine what it actually means to “understand” something. When someone

understands something, there are a few different things that can mean. For example, let’s say that

Professor McElroy is holding a private lesson for his students Justin, Travis, and Griffin, on the

idea of what is and isn’t pseudoscience. They all say that they understand, but are using the word

differently. Justin means “I comprehend the information you are telling me, and have

incorporated it into how I understand the world”. Travis means “I remember what the
 Rodriguez 2

information is, and could pass a test on it.” Griffin means “I support your conclusions even

though I’m not quite sure how they work, and Justin and Travis seem to know, so the fact that

other people get how this works is good enough for me.” In this scenario, Professor McElroy’s

lesson on pseudoscience is a stand-in for any new piece of information learned through research,

and Justin, Travis, and Griffin represent different levels of both general society and specific

people’s conceptualizing of that information.

For example, a study done by the 3M State of Science Index, conducted across 14

different countries, found that that the majority of those polled (out of around 14,000) viewed

science as “boring”, or thought it as unimpactful in their day-to-day lives. It also seems that

people generally view science as esoteric and unwelcoming, as the study also found that 31% of

those polled also thought that “Only geniuses can have a career in science”. The fact that there is

such a large portion of the world who have difficulty bridging the gap between science and their

daily lives speaks both to the resistance people can sometimes display towards information that

challenges their worldview, and to an inherent problem in scientific journalism. Namely, the

sensationalization of scientific discoveries and the difficulty of disseminating accurate

information to the general public.

An article published in the EMBO journal entitled “The Dilemma of Raising Awareness

‘Responsibly’”, from 2016, posited that raising public awareness in science can oftentimes be a

difficult and problematic undertaking, due to the fact that the “public” cannot be approached as a

single, homogenous entity, and that oftentimes multiple differing opinions will arise from several

groups with varying levels of understanding of the topic. One example the article gives is the

ongoing discussions on climate change, where news outlets would oftentimes frame the issue as
 Rodriguez 3

a public debate with both sides deserving of an equal say, despite the fact that the actual research

and data were squarely in the corner of those who said that climate change was a real existential

concern. Those who put forth the notions that climate change was a hoax, or not actually

man-made, or was man-made but not harmful, were given just as much of a platform to spread

their views, even though every scientist who was knowledgeable on the subject could easily

refute all of their claims. In this instance, despite the science being clear, people decided to draw

their own conclusions no matter what the science said. However, it is also controversial to keep

scientific developments hidden.

In that same EMBO article, the author remarks that “​These recent debates in the context of

climate change reveal some of the dilemmas at the heart of science communication ... Speaking

up on a topic can lead to being cast as an (irresponsible) “advocate” or cheerleader, but speaking

up is increasingly seen as the responsibility of scientists, in particular by people in high office…”

In essence, there are those in the scientific community who believe that advocating for more

scientific awareness does more harm than good, and those that believe it is part of a scientist’s

responsibility to tell the public how to view the information that they are given.

This lack of consensus among the scientific community on how best to deliver

information to the average person and how to frame that information has, perhaps inadvertently,

compounded the issue of understanding; if those more knowledgeable are silent about an issue,

how does the average person know what to believe? How can someone lacking in scientific

literacy parse through oceans of conflicting information to find the actual informed sources?

These are questions with no easy answers, but they highlight the issues inherent in the

understanding of scientific information.

 Rodriguez 4

This question of understanding, and the difficulty in having a unified sense of it, ties

directly into the issue of resistance to new information and irrational skepticism. To revisit the

issue of climate change, even when given all of the actual facts, many self-proclaimed skeptics

denied the existence of climate change or tried to frame the issue as something that was not

worth concern. In many cases, people sought after sources that, despite not having any actual

evidence, validated what they already thought about the issue. Political cartoons abound with

smug illustrations pointing out the fact that snow is falling in the winter, usually with a glib

comment that is some variation of “so much for climate change.” Generally, people who take an

anti-science perspective have no information to support themselves, and it becomes an issue of

facts versus beliefs.

To point to some lighter examples, let’s look at the Dinosaur discourse. In most popular

media, dinosaurs are depicted as reptilian creatures, dragons of the Mesozoic Era. The movie

Jurassic Park​ has made the Tyrannosaurus Rex an icon of raw predatory instinct, a titanic

creature who rules over the prehistoric age. To many people, that is not just an artist’s rendering,

that is what a dinosaur ​is​. So of course, when it was discovered that many dinosaurs had feathers,

tempers were raised. An article published in the Smithsonian magazine by Riley Black entitled

“Why Is It Cool to Hate on Dinosaur Discoveries?” assesses how the public reacts to new

information on things that they care about, even though the science has nothing to do with

aesthetic opinion.

Black mentions that “...​comments about how ​Yutyrannus​[a feathered dinosaur] has

somehow ruined tyrannosaurs made me wonder about why it is so fashionable to register cranky
 Rodriguez 5

displeasure with the way dinosaurs have changed.” Black takes notice of the fact that the

dinosaurs didn’t go anywhere; scientists simply learned new information they were not

previously aware of and shared it with the world. Many times, people cannot separate what they

believe from what is true. Black draws a parallel between the reaction to feathered dinosaurs and

the controversy around reclassifying pluto. “Of course, Pluto didn’t actually go anywhere. Its

title simply changed. But the alteration virtually obliterated the cosmic body in people’s minds.”

Oftentimes, people are more comfortable with their beliefs being validated, than having to face

evidence that goes against what they already think they know.

This fear of having to change one’s worldview, of having to accept new developments

into one’s perception of reality, gives rise to irrational skepticism and so-called “alternative

facts”. Most people who complain about feathered dinosaurs, or who rail against the

reclassification of Pluto, can ultimately live with these changes. They are “entirely on board with

the science” as Black puts it, and eventually learn to live with the new information. By contrast,

the irrational skeptic only believes what they want to believe, and any evidence to the contrary is

immediately written off as a hoax, or a manipulation of the media, or any other label they can use

in order to not be confronted by that which disagrees with them. Primary examples of this are the

Anti-vaccination movement and Flat-Earth theorists.

Anti-vaxxers, as they are commonly referred to, are people who believe that vaccinations

have negative results upon a child’s well-being. These objections usually involve a fear that

vaccines cause autism in children, and that the government is attempting to cover this fact up.

There is usually never any justification to these claims beyond a general sense of fear and

distrust. The Flat-Earth movement is similar, in that its proponents believe that the earth is flat,
 Rodriguez 6

and that the government or some sinister cabal of world leaders are endeavoring to keep this fact

a secret for reasons unknown. According to an article published on livescience.com, people who

latch onto these conspiracy theories do so because of “minority influence”, or the idea that when

a vocal minority has a seemingly well-thought stance, it becomes more attractive than the norm.

When presented with evidence that disproves their position, it only strengthens their convictions.

As such, it is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to change these people’s minds.

The difficulty in bridging the way an expert understands a subject and the way the

average person understands is what leads to difficulties in reconciling new information with

one’s current worldview. There are people who become wholly disinterested in scientific

advancements, and who don’t see science as having any real value on their lives. This scientific

apathy then paves the way for things like climate change denialism, anti-vaccination, and

Flat-Earth theories. When people are given information without the proper context, it becomes

difficult for even the most open-minded person to figure out what is right and what is wrong, and

ultimately the question of how to foster understanding is one that has no easy answers.
 Rodriguez 7

WORKS CITED

Why Is It Cool To Hate On Dinosaur Discoveries?

Riley Black -

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/why-is-it-cool-to-hate-on-dinosaur-discoveries-763

35199/

Are Flat-earthers Being Serious?

Natalie Wolchover - ​https://www.livescience.com/24310-flat-earth-belief.html

The Dilemma Of Raising Awareness "responsibly": The Need To Discuss Controversial Research
with the Public Raises a Conundrum For Scientists: When Is the Right Time To Start Public
Debates?
Brigitte Nerlich-Carmen McLeod - ​https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4818777/

Survey: Most People Don't Understand Science, Want Their Kids To Do It

John Timmer -

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/03/survey-most-people-dont-understand-science-want-their-ki

ds-to-do-it/