People think that science is most difficult subject and requires heavy instruments and state art of technology and hardworking to explore and discover. So people avoid science. Through scientific literacy we can aware about it's nature and philosophy how this knowledge is emerged and transformed in current from of knowledge and exploration. It's all about safe and efficacious use of science for betterment of society. It ensures ethical, safe and responsible use of science.

Dear Shairose,

I assume there are several different levels of scientific literacy. The first is the level of scientific findings, the second the level of scientific explanation (theories), the third the level of how scientists gain the new knowledge (methodology) and the last is the level of various unquestionable presuppositions (epistemology). To be fully scientific literal would mean to have access to all four levels, which practically means one is a scientist. When one is not a scientist, then there is usually no need to go deeper than the first level. The deeper one goes, more time and cognitive effort one needs to invest in order to get access, so why one should, if s/he does not need it?

And there is another funny element in this story. I mean, there is a difference between natural science and social science. As Giddens says every one, who is properly socialised in a distinct community, is a practical social theorist. This, I believe, means that the line between social scientist and a laymen is a bit thinner than in natural science. The literacy in social science is thus easier to achieve when one is eager to, and harder when not.

Best, Tomaž

My idea of scientific literacy involves an understanding of the evolution and current state of knowledge about natural phenomena, as well as the ability to navigate through at least one area of scientific investigation.

@ Tomaz Krpic

Thank you much for sharing ur understanding. I was thinking while reading that for a lay man, if only first level is achieveable, would that scientific findings be of any use. What do we mean by findings, does it include how to use that findings for personal n societal benefit. Regards

@ Fernando Espinoza

Thanks for the comment. Can u please elaborate a bit what do you mean by one area of scientific investigation. If it is subject/displine area then I wonder can science be compartmentalised in reality. For me, science in surrounding is multi-disciplinary which includes chemistry, physics, bio along with ethics, economics etc due to its multidimensional nature and linkages. Regards

@ Abdul Hadi

My idea of scientific literacy resonates with yours. But I wonder, is it an achievable goal. We want our citizens to be scientific literate whereas the fact is that many countries are far behind in simple literacy level. In this age of individualism, how to expect that people will prefer the ethical use of scientific knowledge for societal benefit. I am just playing the role of Devil's advocate now🙂

Shairose,

Certainly; by at least one area I mean a discipline where one can base the following features of scientific knowledge (as described in my textbook: The Nature of Science):

1. All explanations must be naturalistic

2. All hypotheses must be as simple as possible (parsimonious)

3. All claims must be testable

I would not agree with compartmentalizing since the above features are universal, to the extent that they apply to all scientific disciplines. I agree with the interdisciplinary nature of science, and this can be integrated into an approach that allows for connections to the humanities and arts, but that would be advantageous by virtue of having extensive knowledge in at least one area.

Regards

Fernando

Shairose Jessani, any usefulness of scientific knowledge is not necessary directly acknowledged. Sometimes it takes time to find out its proper use, either as technological improvement or just better understanding of the world. However, belief that knowledge produced by science is always useful is not universal.in modern western societies this belief is (still) in power. A layman can relay on technological innovations, while his understanding of scientific process can be very shallow, as long as he is a true believer. When this magic stop working, the layman can no longer benefit from the scientific findings due to changes in politics that follow. Of course, a teacher need to go deeper than that. some knowledge about scientific process is mandatory.