Review of Literature
Science constantly undergoes change. It is the nature of science to constantly change and progress as many scientists and researchers work continuously towards proving or disproving a vast range of hypotheses. There are often new facts discovered and sometimes new findings disprove what was previously accepted. This continuous progress has been partly responsible for the creation of misconceptions as older education systems would have taught what was scientifically accepted at the time, even though it may have been disproved later. (Niiniluoto, 2015) This cycle, along with the spread of myths, legends and folklore are partly responsible for the creation of many misconceptions in the field of life sciences and biology. Conceptual
…show more content…
One article which was published in 1984 by Barrass listed some biological misconceptions which he discovered were formed from errors or ambiguous information in textbooks and from misinformed teachers. This research, however, is thirty-two years old and some educational systems all over the world have progressed since then and this is much less of an issue in certain regions presently. The one statement made in the article which is still very relevant today is that it is also a difference in day-to-day language and scientific language which leads to some misconceptions. For example, in science, a theory is something supported and accepted but when discussed casually it has a completely contradictory denotation. This discrepancy has the potential to contribute to many misconceptions because the students may misunderstand the meaning of the word/s and thus the entire concept may be …show more content…
The researchers discuss the value of social media as an outlet for ‘outreach’ and how social media can be used effectively by the scientific community to distribute scientifically accurate information. The researchers analyse the current social media situation in depth and they conclude that the current attitudes and behaviours of scientists on social media is distorted and that some focus should be put on improving this in order for social media to properly facilitate the distribution of information. The research was published recently in the F1000 Research and was carried out by two professional researchers. The data is valid as it was peer reviewed and deemed to be scientifically