Probing scientists' beliefs: how open‐minded are modern scientists?

Abstract

Just how open‐minded are modern scientists? In this paper we examine this question for the science faculty from New Zealand and UK universities. The Exeter questionnaire used by Preece and Baxter (2000) to examine superstitious beliefs of high school students and preservice science teachers was used as a basis for a series of in‐depth interviews of scientists across a variety of disciplines. The interviews sought to understand the basis on which scientists form beliefs and how they judge evidence for various propositions, including those from the Exeter questionnaire and other contentious beliefs introduced during discourse. The scientists are dismissive of traditional superstitions like bad luck associated with black cats and inauspicious numbers such as 13, seeing such beliefs as socially grounded. There is a strong socio‐cultural aspect to other beliefs and personal experiences, and strongly held personal beliefs are influential, resulting in the scientists keeping an open mind about contentious beliefs like alien life and the existence of ghosts. Testimony of others including media reports are deemed unreliable unless provided by credible witnesses such as ‘educated people’ or ‘experts’, or if they coincide with the scientists' personal beliefs. These scientists see a need for potential theoretical explanations for beliefs and are generally dismissive of empirical evidence without underlying explanations.

Notes

Scientific literacy represents a diversity of views, but represents a framework of three major interpretations of the term ‘literate’ in the literature: namely, ‘learned’, ‘competent’, and ‘able to function in society as consumers and citizens’. Laugksch explains that ‘when moving across the literate categories from “learned” to “function in society”, an increasingly greater emphasis is placed on being able to carry out a task with the acquired scientific literacy attributes, and on being able to use these attributes to cope in everyday life” (2000: 83).