In recent years, particularly in 2021, misconceptions surrounding science literacy have surfaced, influenced by figures like Senator Rand Paul, who propagated theories linking Dr. Fauci to the engineered origins of COVID-19. Contrary to these claims, the prevailing scientific consensus refutes such theories.

In our contemporary world, gaining a thorough understanding of scientific truths is increasingly complex. For those who have not dedicated years to studying a specific scientific field, recognizing the full scope and validity of information can be nearly impossible. Without the expertise of trained professionals, individuals often miss critical insights that can differentiate between established facts and fallacies.

A common fallacy is the belief that independent research through various media can yield the same level of understanding as that of experts. Many assume that accumulating relevant facts and applying logic will suffice for scientific literacy, leading to expert-level decision-making. This significant misconception underlies the public's mistrust of science today. To remedy this, we must first clarify what it truly means to be scientifically literate.

Defining Scientific Literacy What constitutes scientific literacy? Many people gauge their scientific understanding by their ability to answer factual questions, akin to measuring language proficiency. A solid grasp of concepts such as:

• Gravity
• Biological evolution
• Earth's geological layers
• Germ theory
• Planetary motion
• Basic mathematical principles

ensures success in standard scientific literacy assessments. However, these tests often highlight alarming gaps in public knowledge. For instance, many individuals fail to recognize the Earth's roundness or struggle to calculate its circumference.

Most people, when faced with progressively challenging questions, will eventually reach the limits of their understanding.

Surveys frequently ask whether the Earth orbits the Sun or vice versa, revealing that around 25% of respondents answer incorrectly, suggesting a broader issue of scientific comprehension. However, this does not indicate a lack of intelligence. Similar to standardized tests, these assessments merely reflect the ability to recall specific information, not genuine understanding or aptitude.

Relying on a narrow set of questions to measure scientific literacy is insufficient.

The Limitations of Current Definitions This current approach to defining scientific literacy fails for several reasons. Primarily, people are not "doing science" when making informed decisions. Instead, they often rely on a flawed understanding of the world, assessing literacy based on memorized facts rather than engaging with scientific principles.

Even if individuals attempted to conduct experiments themselves, the lack of proper training would hinder their ability to analyze data accurately. Most lack the skills to:

• Properly calibrate experiments
• Account for uncertainties
• Follow protocols for data acquisition
• Contextualize results within broader scientific knowledge

In essence, the absence of required expertise limits our capacity to draw valid conclusions from our inquiries.

While it's easy to blame educators and scientists for public misunderstanding, this perspective is misguided. Student performance often reflects factors beyond instruction, such as the rarity of long-term retention of information and the influence of non-scientific beliefs.

The expectation that answering random questions equates to scientific literacy is unreasonable. The past few years have revealed how poorly we distinguish fact from fiction, select credible experts, and draw sound conclusions from data.

The reality is that most individuals are not adequately informed to make sound decisions on pressing scientific issues. The concept of "informed consent" in healthcare emphasizes the difference between perceived and actual knowledge.

What is Scientific Literacy? Many crucial scientific concepts are beyond the grasp of the average person, not due to a lack of intelligence, but because few are willing to invest the time and effort required to master them. Becoming a competent scientist necessitates years of specialized training, during which individuals must learn intricate details and correct numerous misconceptions.

Instead of expecting universal mastery of these concepts, we can foster scientific literacy through two key measures:

1. Cultivating an understanding of the scientific process.
2. Encouraging appreciation for the positive impacts of science on society.

Dr. Morris Shamos emphasized that fostering both awareness and appreciation for science could transform society.

At its core, science encompasses both a body of knowledge and a process for inquiry and discovery. Being aware of the scientific endeavor entails recognizing personal limitations compared to experts, including an acknowledgment of one's own ignorance.

Appreciating science means understanding the advancements that have improved our lives compared to previous generations. Our comprehension of nature and the laws governing it has led to significant technological progress.

Building a Scientifically Literate Society Creating a scientifically literate society requires listening to credible experts and filtering out misinformation. Much of the media consumed is noise, often misleading and designed to exploit existing biases.

Scientific progress relies on collaboration and knowledge-sharing within the scientific community. The notion of "rugged individualism" conflicts with the collaborative nature of scientific advancement.

Despite the challenges posed by misinformation, science continues to yield significant breakthroughs, such as the rapid development of effective vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 and the eradication of diseases once deemed fatal.

To achieve scientific literacy, individuals must be willing to admit when they are wrong. Science does not align with personal beliefs; it seeks empirical truths. Acknowledging errors is essential for societal growth.

Historically, we have approached scientific literacy as a quantifiable measure, assuming anyone can achieve a baseline understanding. However, expertise varies widely across fields. We must defer to the consensus of experts in their respective domains.

Choosing experts based on personal biases leads to detrimental outcomes. Scientific literacy empowers individuals to assimilate knowledge beyond their current understanding.

Ultimately, fostering scientific literacy is a gradual process, requiring open-mindedness and a willingness to adapt. If we can encourage individuals to listen to science, we may inspire meaningful change.

(This article is a re-run from earlier in 2021 as part of a “best of 2021” series that will run from Christmas Eve until the New Year. Happy holidays, everyone.)

Starts With A Bang is written by Ethan Siegel, Ph.D., author of Beyond The Galaxy, and Treknology: The Science of Star Trek from Tricorders to Warp Drive.