Name: Santillan, Kylie Anne B.

Section: PSY 227

Learning Journal Week 6 - The Nature of Science and Controversies

In this week 6 lecture, I’ve recognized that when trying to describe the nature of science, it can be
useful to think of science as a culture in just the same way that we think of the cultural worlds of art
and music. We need to understand and talk art or music when we enter these worlds. In the same
way, we need to be able to understand and talk science. Also, controversy in science is healthy. It
involves disagreements on how we should interpret data, over which ideas are supported the best by
the evidence that is available, and what ideas are worth further investigation. It compels scientists to
carefully examine data and perform additional research to help scientific study progress. And as stated
in the text, controversy “is an essential part of the process of science”. Furthermore, choosing not to
teach about controversial topics can create educational inequities because some topics are socially
controversial but remain central to scientific literacy. Case studies that reveal the human face of
controversy can promote the salience and relevance of learning and can help students understand
the varied perspectives and positions different stakeholders bring to those topics.

Different types of controversy are inevitable in science. Scientific controversies are disagreements that
arise among scientists (e.g., as competing hypotheses are explored). Reasoned skepticism,
argumentation, debate, and working toward consensus knowledge all contribute to scientific
understanding. Scientists also gain knowledge on topics that can be socially divisive. Individuals may
disagree about which scientific topics are important to pursue, what methods should be used, and how
scientific knowledge should be applied, resulting in social-scientific controversies. These issues
necessitate both scientific understanding and recognition of the various values and ethical perspectives
that stakeholders bring to the decision-making process.

Some social controversies involve science but are not widely debated among scientists (e.g., how
species evolve, global climate change). These controversies can arise as a result of a lack of
understanding of how science is conducted. When scientists, for example, demonstrate healthy
skepticism by acknowledging the tentativeness of conclusions or the importance of remaining open-
minded in the face of new evidence, members of the public may interpret this as scientists not having
"proven" something unequivocally. This could include people's perceptions of scientific knowledge as
static rather than dynamic over time.