<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt">Rest of the article:<br><br>In this study, researchers measured "science literacy" with test
items developed by the National Science Foundation. They also measured
their subjects' "numeracy"—that is, their ability and disposition to
understand quantitative information.<br><br>"In effect," Kahan said,
"ordinary members of the public credit or dismiss scientific information
on disputed issues based on whether the information strengthens or
weakens their ties to others who share their values. At least among
ordinary members of the public, individuals with higher science
comprehension are even better at fitting the evidence to their group
commitments."<br><br>Kahan said that the study supports no inferences about the reasoning of scientific experts in climate change.<br><br>Researcher
Ellen Peters of Ohio State University said that people who are higher
in numeracy and science literacy usually make better decisions in
complex technical situations, but the study clearly casts doubt on the
notion that the more you understand science and math, the better
decisions you'll make in complex and technical situations. "What this
study shows is that people with high science and math comprehension can
think their way to conclusions that are better for them as individuals
but are not necessarily better for society."<br><br>According to Kahan,
the study suggests the need for science communication strategies that
reflect a more sophisticated understanding of cultural values.<br><br>"More
information can help solve the climate change conflict," Kahan said,
"but that information has to do more than communicate the scientific
evidence. It also has to create a climate of deliberations in which no
group perceives that accepting any piece of evidence is akin to betrayal
of their cultural group."</div></body></html>