Science as a Knowledge Source, Lesson 2
Lesson 2: Fact-Finding Task
Focus: How do real-world scientific controversies reveal tensions between justification, objectivity, and perspective?
Suggested Length: 1 hour
Learning Objectives:
- Analyze real-world case studies where scientific knowledge was challenged, revised, or misused.
- Understand how different perspectives and contexts influence what is accepted as “scientific truth.”
- Use TOK concepts (e.g., justification, objectivity, perspective) to examine the reliability of scientific knowledge.
- Substantiate or challenge claims from Lesson 1 using contextual examples and TOK reasoning.
| Critical Thinking Concepts | TOK Concepts | Reflection Questions |
|---|---|---|
| Confronting Biases & Assumptions: Analyze how the assumption that science is always neutral or value-free can obscure the influence of funding, ideology, or politics. Exploring Contexts: Consider how geography, class, race, political ideology, or historical context affect how scientific knowledge is produced, interpreted, and trusted. Responsiveness and Flexibility of Thought: Reconsider whether a scientific claim is reliable after examining the context, funding, and public response surrounding it. | Justification: What reasons were given to support or reject the scientific claim? Were these reasons based on evidence, authority, peer review, or institutional status? Objectivity: To what extent were the methods, interpretations, or outcomes of the scientific case influenced by bias, funding, ideology, or social values? Perspective: Whose viewpoint shaped the public, political, or institutional response to the scientific controversy? | Can efforts to make science more inclusive ever be truly equal when access to funding, publication, and institutional support remains uneven? What role should credibility, transparency, and ethics play in deciding whether scientific claims are accepted or contested? Should all scientific research that affects public wellbeing (e.g., health, environment, genetics) require broader social consultation, or are there exceptions? |
Resources and Preparation
- Slides, attached below.
- Students will need access to their Kialo discussions from Lesson 1.
- Ensure students complete the homework preparation task.
- Videos/readings accompanying the case studies of your choice should be viewed in advance.
Homework Preparation Task
Case Study Task
Divide students into small groups and assign each group a real world scientific case study. Students will add their findings to the Kialo discussion from Lesson 1.
Each group will:
- Reflect on how the case connects to the concepts discussed in Lesson 1.
- Explore the case using provided resources and their own research.
- Prepare a short presentation (5–7 minutes) responding to the question: “How does the chosen scientific case challenge or reinforce the idea that science is the most reliable method of creating knowledge?”
- Students should include details of:
- What happened in the case.
- How different perspectives (scientists, government, public, media) justified or criticized the work.
- Which TOK concept is most relevant: justification, objectivity, or perspective.
- Whether the case supports or challenges a claim from Lesson 1.
Case Study Options
- Replication Crisis
- Focus: Widespread failure to replicate studies in psychology and biomedicine.
- Key Question: If findings cannot be repeated, are they reliable?
- Suggested Sources:
- Planet Vulcan and the Limits of Newtonian Physics
- Focus: 19th-century astronomers invented a planet to protect Newton’s laws when Mercury’s orbit didn’t match.
- Key Question: Why were scientists reluctant to revise their models, even with contradictory evidence?
- Suggested Sources:
- HIV/AIDS Denialism and Public Harm
- Focus: Political leaders in South Africa rejected mainstream science, leading to delayed treatment rollout and thousands of deaths.
- Key Question: What happens when alternative perspectives are given equal footing despite lacking evidence?
- Suggested Sources:
- The Human Genome Project
- Focus: A global effort to map human DNA that raised debates about ownership, funding, and genetic ethics.
- Key Question: Who decides what counts as valuable research, and who benefits?
- Suggested Sources:
Introduction
Recap Lesson 1: Review key claims from the Kialo discussion.
Prompt: What claims did you find most convincing or flawed? Did any arguments rely too much on assumptions without real verification?
Present the central question for this lesson: How do real-world scientific controversies reveal tensions between justification, objectivity, and perspective?
Emphasize applying objectivity, perspective, and interpretation to evaluate how scientific methods and knowledge are judged and categorised by institutions, the public, etc.
Main Activity
Bridge to Lesson 2:
Explain that in this lesson, students will explore real-world scientific controversies where:
- Scientific claims were challenged, ignored, or revise.
- Perspectives from media, public, government, and the scientific community influenced the legitimacy of those claims.
These cases highlight that scientific knowledge is not always neutral, universally accepted, or free from social influence.
Clarify the shift: This is no longer about theory alone — we’re now testing claims from Lesson 1 using historical and contemporary examples. Students will investigate how evidence, bias, power, and public trust affect the status of scientific knowledge.
Reinforce the goal: Move from general discussion to evidence-based evaluation. These case studies should help students understand how scientific knowledge is constructed, challenged, or reshaped within specific institutional and social frameworks.
Presentations:
Students present their case studies to the class.
Students should take note of any useful points from other groups’ presentations to use in the Kialo discussion.
Recording Findings in a Kialo Discussion:
Students return to the Kialo discussion from Lesson 1 and:
- Add at least one new claim or counterclaim based on their case study.
- Reply to at least one peer’s argument, using insights from another group’s case.
- Label their post with the relevant TOK concept (e.g., justification – peer review failure, perspective – political interference, objectivity – funding bias).
Focus areas for Kialo updates
- Scientific Gatekeeping: Who decides which scientific knowledge is accepted, funded, or published and who gets excluded?
- Institutional Authority: How do governments, corporations, or journals affect the perceived legitimacy of a scientific claim?
- Trust and Public Reception: How does misinformation, media framing, or social bias shape what the public considers “science”?
- Knowledge Inequality: Are all scientific voices, especially from the Global South, Indigenous communities, or whistleblowers, treated equally within the scientific system?
Reflection Activity
Discuss the following reflection questions in open discussion or exit ticket format:
- How did your case study affect your understanding of who gets to define and legitimize scientific knowledge?
- What made certain examples feel more like political or institutional interference — versus scientific self-correction or progress?
- In your case, who had the most control over the scientific narrative: researchers, governments, corporations, or the public?
- Can efforts to make science more inclusive ever be truly equal when access to funding, publication, and institutional support remains uneven?
- What role should credibility, transparency, and ethics play in deciding whether scientific claims are accepted or contested?
- Should all scientific research that affects public wellbeing (e.g., health, environment, genetics) require broader social consultation — or are there exceptions?
