Can science literacy help individuals identify misinformation in everyday life?
Abstract
Certain science‐related topics elicit persistent public controversy, such as routine childhood vaccinations and anthropogenic climate change. Many people are misinformed about the scientific facts underlying these issues. In response, science educators have called for improvements in the public's science literacy, but it is not clear which components of science literacy would help individuals identify misinformation. In this position paper, we examine this issue and make two arguments. First, we unpack the construct of science literacy to the seven components identified by the National Academies, and argue that four of these components are most likely to help individuals identify misinformation in everyday life: (a) Understanding of scientific practices; (b) Identifying and judging appropriate scientific expertise, (c) Epistemic knowledge, and (d) Dispositions and habits of mind, for example, inquisitiveness and open‐mindedness. We also show that three of these four components are not commonly used in definitions of science literacy. Second, we posit that two opposite reasons explain why misinformation is so intractable: on the one hand, that individuals uncritically accept most information, even if it is false, and on the other hand, that they reject information that contradicts their worldview, even if it is true. Consequently, we argue that inculcating intellectual virtues, such as open‐mindedness, should be central to imparting science literacy and propose some implicatio…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
As more students turn to the internet as their dominant source of scientific information, researchers have become increasingly interested in the implications for science education.
“As more students turn to the internet as their dominant source of scientific information, researchers have become increasingly interested in the implications for science education (e.g., Osborne & Pimentel, 2022;Polman et al., 2014;Sharon & Baram-Tsabari, 2020).”
From Learning to evaluate sources of science (mis)information on the internet: Assessing students' scientific online reasoning (2025) · cites this paper as Sharon & Baram-Tsabari, 2020
The volume and complexity of scientific information can make it challenging to engage in a direct, first-order assessment of scientific claims in the media when one does not have specialized knowledge of the topic.
“The volume and complexity of scientific information can make it challenging to engage in a direct, first-order assessment of scientific claims in the media when one does not have specialized knowledge of the topic (Sharon & Baram-Tsabari, 2020;Tseng et al., 2021).”
From Learning to evaluate sources of science (mis)information on the internet: Assessing students' scientific online reasoning (2025) · cites this paper as Sharon & Baram-Tsabari, 2020
Cites
Wineburg, S., & McGrew, S. (2019) · Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education · doi:10.1177/016146811912101102 · Cited by 394 · see citing works
Public Misunderstanding of Science? Reframing the Problem of Vaccine Hesitancy
Goldenberg, M. J. (2016) · Perspectives on Science · doi:10.1162/posc_a_00223 · Cited by 218 · cited 2× · see citing works
“safety in terms of their particular child (Goldenberg, 2016).”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Deepfakes and scientific knowledge dissemination
Doss, C., Mondschein, J., Shu, D., Wolfson, T., Kopecky, D., Fitton-Kane, V. A., Bush, L., & Tucker, C. (2023) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-39944-3 · Cited by 90 · see citing works
Pimentel, D. R. (2025) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.21974 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
- Authors
- Sharon, A. J., & Baram‐Tsabari, A.
- Affiliations
- Technion – Israel Institute of Technology (IL)
- Corresponding author
- Baram‐Tsabari, Ayelet
- Venue
- Science Education
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2020-05-22
- Volume
- 104
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 873-894
- ISSN
- 0036-8326 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-237X
- OpenAlex
- W3028537706
- Cited by
- 196
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 22 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 46 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 9
- FWCI
- 37.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Science Education (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Israel Science Foundation (1599/15)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Science Education and Perceptions
- Keywords
- scientific literacy, misinformation, scientific practice, scientific expertise, epistemic knowledge, habits of mind, open-mindedness, inquisitiveness, intellectual virtues, public controversy, childhood immunization, climate change
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review