Focus:<\/strong> How do real-world scientific controversies reveal tensions between justification, objectivity, and perspective?<\/em><\/em><\/p> Suggested Length: 1 hour<\/p> Learning Objectives:<\/p>\n
Critical Thinking Concepts<\/th> TOK Concepts<\/th> Reflection Questions<\/th><\/tr><\/thead> Confronting Biases & Assumptions:<\/strong> Analyze how the assumption that science is always neutral or value-free can obscure the influence of funding, ideology, or politics.
Exploring Contexts:<\/strong> Consider how geography, class, race, political ideology, or historical context affect how scientific knowledge is produced, interpreted, and trusted.
Responsiveness and Flexibility of Thought:<\/strong> Reconsider whether a scientific claim is reliable after examining the context, funding, and public response surrounding it.
<\/td>Justification: <\/strong>What reasons were given to support or reject the scientific claim? Were these reasons based on evidence, authority, peer review, or institutional status?
Objectivity:<\/strong> To what extent were the methods, interpretations, or outcomes of the scientific case influenced by bias, funding, ideology, or social values?
Perspective: <\/strong>Whose viewpoint shaped the public, political, or institutional response to the scientific controversy?
<\/td>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?
<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>