Are we arguing about basic scientific education or about scientific research? While I completely agree with the conclusions of that study as they pertain to science education in secondary school – in fact, I’d say they apply to all subjects in US secondary schools – I don’t see that the same criticisms apply to physics research wherein the participants have already demonstrated their ability to alter their beliefs, at least in the case of Newtonian mechanics (and much moreso in relativity and QM).
But scientific research and science education and communication are very different animals. While obviously it would be best to help give everyone the tools they need to facilitate altering their beliefs to accommodate new information that doesn’t necessarily say anything about what actual physicists need to do their actual job. That’s what I’ve been discussing all along, clearly, as “peer review” doesn’t even apply directly to science education before college and only tangentially to science communication.
I’m still not seeing why I should take your pronouncements on what should be “required reading” as credible but I’ll give it a read. I tend to think you’ve not only failed to make your case but quietly shifted the goalposts. After all, we started off by arguing whether peer review should play any part in assessing the credibility of scientific data and now you’re arguing to me about science education.
