NotesFAQContact Us
Search Tips
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Direct linkDirect link
ERIC Number: EJ859954
Record Type: Journal
Publication Date: 2009-Sep
Pages: 14
Abstractor: As Provided
Reference Count: 77
ISSN: ISSN-1076-898X
Evaluating Science Arguments: Evidence, Uncertainty, and Argument Strength
Corner, Adam; Hahn, Ulrike
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, v15 n3 p199-212 Sep 2009
Public debates about socioscientific issues are increasingly prevalent, but the public response to messages about, for example, climate change, does not always seem to match the seriousness of the problem identified by scientists. Is there anything unique about appeals based on scientific evidence--do people evaluate science and nonscience arguments differently? In an attempt to apply a systematic framework to people's evaluation of science arguments, the authors draw on the Bayesian approach to informal argumentation. The Bayesian approach permits questions about how people evaluate science arguments to be posed and comparisons to be made between the evaluation of science and nonscience arguments. In an experiment involving three separate argument evaluation tasks, the authors investigated whether people's evaluations of science and nonscience arguments differed in any meaningful way. Although some differences were observed in the relative strength of science and nonscience arguments, the evaluation of science arguments was determined by the same factors as nonscience arguments. Our results suggest that science communicators wishing to construct a successful appeal can make use of the Bayesian framework to distinguish strong and weak arguments. (Contains 6 figures and 2 footnotes.)
American Psychological Association. Journals Department, 750 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20002-4242. Tel: 800-374-2721; Tel: 202-336-5510; Fax: 202-336-5502; e-mail:; Web site:
Publication Type: Journal Articles; Reports - Evaluative
Education Level: Higher Education
Audience: N/A
Language: English
Sponsor: N/A
Authoring Institution: N/A