Learn why phonics is the best way to teach kids to read; and how false science benefits from people who “trust science.” Plus: this month’s Curiosity Challenge trivia game! Additional resources from Emily Oster: Pick up "The Family Firm: A Data-Driven Guide to Better Decision Making in the Early Years" at your local bookstore: https://www.indiebound.org/book/9781984881755?aff=penguinrandom Website: https://emilyoster.net/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/ProfEmilyOster "Trusting science" may make you more likely to share false science — but there's a fix by Grant Currin Misplaced trust: When trust in science fosters pseudoscience. (2021, July 26). EurekAlert! https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/923454 O’Brien, T. C., Palmer, R., & Albarracin, D. (2021). Misplaced trust: When trust in science fosters belief in pseudoscience and the benefits of critical evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 96, 104184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2021.104184 Episodes referenced in Curiosity Challenge Trivia game: Kids don’t get humor: https://www.curiositydaily.com/kids-v-sarcasm-24000-year-old-worm-why-betelgeuse-dimmed/ Glowing clouds: https://www.curiositydaily.com/cognitive-flexibility-arctic-dinosaurs-noctilucent-clouds/ Guilty emotion: https://www.curiositydaily.com/anger-looks-guilty-quantum-microscope-good-news-about-cancer/ Follow Curiosity Daily on your favorite podcast app to learn something new every day withCody Gough andAshley Hamer. Still curious? Get exclusive science shows, nature documentaries, and more real-life entertainment on discovery+! Go to https://discoveryplus.com/curiosity to start your 7-day free trial. discovery+ is currently only available for US subscribers.
Learn why phonics is the best way to teach kids to read; and how false science benefits from people who “trust science.” Plus: this month’s Curiosity Challenge trivia game!
Additional resources from Emily Oster:
"Trusting science" may make you more likely to share false science — but there's a fix by Grant Currin
Episodes referenced in Curiosity Challenge Trivia game:
Follow Curiosity Daily on your favorite podcast app to learn something new every day with Cody Gough and Ashley Hamer. Still curious? Get exclusive science shows, nature documentaries, and more real-life entertainment on discovery+! Go to https://discoveryplus.com/curiosity to start your 7-day free trial. discovery+ is currently only available for US subscribers.
Find episode transcript here: https://curiosity-daily-4e53644e.simplecast.com/episodes/learning-to-read-right-risks-of-trusting-science-trivia
CODY: Hi! You’re about to get smarter in just a few minutes with Curiosity Daily from curiosity-dot-com. I’m Cody Gough.
ASHLEY: And I’m Ashley Hamer. Today, you’ll learn about what research says is the best way to teach kids to read, with bestselling author Emily Oster; and, why “trusting science” may make you more likely to share false science. Then, play along at home as we test your podcast knowledge with this month’s edition of the Curiosity Challenge trivia game.
CODY: Let’s satisfy AND CHALLENGE some curiosity.
Yesterday, Emily Oster told us how parents can make the best decisions for their kids. Today, we're going to zoom in on the best way kids can learn to read. Emily Oster is an economics professor at Brown University and the author of several books on parenting including her latest: "The Family Firm: A Data-Driven Guide to Better Decision Making in the Early Years." Emily told us that her biggest surprise when writing this book came down to the data on reading.
[CLIP 2:10]
Sounds like Hooked on Phonics works for...everyone! Again, that was Emily Oster, an economics professor at Brown University and the author of several books on parenting including her latest: "The Family Firm: A Data-Driven Guide to Better Decision Making in the Early Years." You can find a link to pick it up in the show notes.
There are many good reasons to trust science. But trust is a double-edged sword. And surprising new study finds that putting a lot of trust in science makes someone more vulnerable to pseudoscience. Fortunately, there’s a fix.
Blind trust in science is damaging because it causes people to let their guard down and to stop asking questions. That’s important for a couple reasons. First, scientists haven’t always acted in everyone’s best interest. Second, trusting in science makes it easier to believe misinformation when it’s presented as scientific fact, something better known as “pseudoscience.”
The researchers behind this set of experiments started by writing four news articles and packing them full of lies. There were two different stories. The first fictional story was about a bioweapon created in a government lab—and the coverup! The second fictional story was about Monsanto selling GMOs while knowing all along that they caused tumors. (Remember, neither of these stories is true!) They wrote two versions of each fictional story (I’m just gonna keep saying “fictional”). One version discussed scientific concepts and included interviews with researchers. The other version quoted activists and didn’t use scientific language.
When they had people read the fictional stories and answer questions about them, the researchers found that people with more trust in science were frequently tricked by the articles that used scientific language. They were also more likely to share the articles with other people. The people with less trust in science were just as likely to believe both versions of the story, whether it was the scientific or the non-scientific one.
Importantly, scientific literacy did make a difference: people with a deeper understanding of science were a lot less likely to believe in pseudoscience, even if they trusted science a lot. They were also less likely to share false information.
In one last experiment, the researchers tried to see if they could help people get better at spotting pseudoscience — and all they did was ask a question. Before reading the article, some people were asked to think of examples of science helping the world and others were asked for examples of times when people needed to think for themselves. A third group was asked about an unrelated topic. As it turned out, the people who were primed to think about thinking for themselves were a lot less likely to believe any of the false stories.
So what does all this mean? It means that you should always think critically, regardless of how “scientific” your information is. Just because something sounds like science doesn’t mean it’s true. So keep asking questions — especially if you catch your finger hovering over the “share” button!
It's time for the Curiosity Challenge! Every month, I call up a listener and put them to the test by asking them three questions about stories we ran on Curiosity Daily in the previous month. For this Curiosity Challenge, I talked to Nick in Lexington, Kentucky. Have a listen!
[CLIP 3:27]
3 out of 3! And the crowd goes wild! How did YOU do? If you’d like to play next month, OR if you have a question you’d like us to answer on the show, shoot us an email at curiosity at discovery dot com, or leave us a voicemail at 312-596-5208!
CODY: Before we recap what we learned today, here’s a sneak peek at what you’ll hear next week on Curiosity Daily.
ASHLEY: Next week, you’ll learn about why you really do literally have a “gut feeling”;
How scientists are building better robots by studying squirrels that do parkour;
Why children write letters backwards;
How Earth’s core is growing lopsided;
And more! Okay, so now, let’s recap what we learned today.
[ad lib optional]
ASHLEY: The writer for today’s last story was Grant Currin.
CODY: Our managing editor is Ashley Hamer, who was also a writer and audio editor on today’s episode.
ASHLEY: Our producer and audio editor is Cody Gough.
CODY: Have a great weekend! [AD LIB SOMETHING FUNNY] Then, join us again Monday to learn something new in just a few minutes.
ASHLEY: And until then, stay curious!