Description To evaluate a media report on a commonly divisive scientific issue and gain appreciatio ...
Description To evaluate a media report on a commonly divisive scientific issue and gain appreciation for how to assess the credibility of an article that purports to be about a scientific issue. To practice critical thinking! We want to be able to discriminate between legitimate scientific presentations and those which may be framed in a “scientific” context but are really pseudoscientific or in the worst cases out and out fraud. An issue that contributes to uncertainty around environmental issues is whether a new idea might be testing the envelope at the frontiers of science to eventually be either accepted or rejected. It is important to remember that legitimate disagreement is part of the process of science. However, we have to be able to decide when a scientific consensus has been reached and it is time to move on ? Read through Carl Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit at: https://www.inverse.com/article/30845-carl-sagan-b... ? Visit the University of Toronto’s Scarborough libraries website on Thinking Critically About Sources at: https://guides.library.utoronto.ca/c.php?g=705826&... ? Review A Rough Guide to Spotting Bad Science at: https://www.compoundchem.com/2014/04/02/a-rough-gu... ? Find a recent article (either hard copy or from the web is acceptable) published within the past year (2024/25 ), reporting on one of the following scientific issues: o climate change; o COVID19 oinfectious diseases; o vaccines; o renewable and alternative energy o evolution o nutrition It should not be a peer reviewed article from a reputable science journal, since the whole purpose of this exercise is to ask you to critically think about information that is being shared in more popular ways. You can choose to select a piece of writing that is not strictly an article published in a journal, magazine, newspaper, etc., but you should ensure that your chosen piece of writing is substantive enough to allow you to carry out the assignment objectives in a meaningful way. For example, a 250 word rant on a social media platform is likely not a good choice for this exercise. As a guideline, your chosen article or piece of writing should be a 5-minute read minimum. You may have to look through several sources to find an article that is appropriate for this exercise. Note, your article must fall within the 2024/25 period, or you risk it being assigned a zero. ? Using a maximum of 1000 words, prepare a critical assessment of the credibility of your chosen article incorporating as many of the relevant criteria (minimum 5 criteria) as outlined in the variety of resources provided, particularly the Rough Guide to Spotting Bad Science source. You should clearly state in your thesis statement and in your conclusion your final assessment on the authenticity or credibility of your chosen article. You will likely have to carry out additional research to address some of the criteria appropriately. Common practice is half truths, so your analysis may involve identifying sections that may be accurate as well as other sections that may be inaccurate and need to be debunked. Overall you need to provide a clear analysis of whether you accept or reject the article’s credibility. ? Remember that critical thinking in this context does not necessarily simply mean to find only fault with your chosen article. Within your minimum five criteria used in your assessment, you should also be identifying and including areas in which it excels or does well to support the article’s credibility. Your assessment should be written in an essay format with an introduction, body and conclusion, in full sentences with paragraphs. Within your assignment you should: ? Include a brief summary of your article, including its full citation within the assignment itself. ? You must attach or append a copy of your article to the back of your assignment or submit as a separate file when you upload on Quercus. A penalty of -50% if the article is not attached. ? Use APA in-text citation method if appropriate. ? Try to incorporate as many of the criteria as relevant (minimum 5) in making your final assessment and be as explicit as possible to clearly identify how you came to your conclusion on the article’s scientific credibility ? Your thesis statement and conclusion should clearly state your informed assessment of the scientific credibility of your chosen article. Additional research may be required. Grading Rubric for Tutorial Assignments Each assignment will be graded based on 3 major criteria: Mechanics: Follows assignment instructions addressing all identified requirements including reference requirements and word counts. Writing is error free in terms of spelling and grammar. Development of Ideas: Arguments/main points are well developed and supported with substantial evidence. Ideas are presented in an organized and logical manner. References: Appropriate references and in-text citations are used appropriately to enhance arguments
