Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.1007/s11422-021-10045-9 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1007/s11422-021-10045-9 33936321!8079232!33936321     free     free     free Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534       Cult+Stud+Sci+Educ 2021 ; 16 (2): 327-336 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=33936321|t=2021. Trust in the time of corona: epistemic practice beyond hard evidence |pdf=|usr=}}{{33936321}} gab.com Text Trust in the time of corona: epistemic practice beyond hard evidence JO: Cult Stud Sci Educ http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33936321 #FOAvip The spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is undoubtedly one of the most extraordinary challenges in recent history. Amidst this global crisis, various controversies have been emerging about how to manage the virus, ranging from whether face masks should be required as a preventive measure to whether hydroxychloroquine is an appropriate treatment. There has been a barrage of contradictory claims related to these issues. However, in many cases, it is not possible for an individual to wait until consensus is reached before deciding on a course of action. Meanwhile, to avoid misplacing trust, trust must be well grounded. Conventional school science largely focuses on the trustworthiness of data and evidence, rather than that of the people making scientific claims. This failure to consider the human factor renders conventional school science inadequate for helping students make informed judgements about granting trust. Drawing on the literature in epistemic practice, this paper highlights four epistemic processes potentially useful for students to ground their trust, including (1) identifying whether recognition from peer reviewers has been obtained; (2) examining the credentials of those who claim expertise; (3) determining the level of expert consensus; and (4) identifying possible sources of bias. Through critical reflection on events related to the Covid-19 pandemic as examples, this paper examines how these epistemic processes inform judgement about the trustworthiness of people in terms of their competence and motives. The discussion highlights the need to develop students' capacity to identify expertise/ credentials, the nature of journals and of organisations when trust is assigned. This paper offers a frame for science educators on guiding students to place trust as a part of their decision-making process. The capability would be relevant to contexts beyond the Covid-19 pandemic. Twit Text FOAVip Trust in the time of corona: epistemic practice beyond hard evidence ????Cult Stud Sci Educ http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33936321 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33936321 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|33936321}}</ref> Trust in the time of corona: epistemic practice beyond hard evidence #MMPMID33936321 Leung JSC; Cheng MMW Cult Stud Sci Educ 2021[]; 16 (2): 327-336 PMID33936321show ga The spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is undoubtedly one of the most extraordinary challenges in recent history. Amidst this global crisis, various controversies have been emerging about how to manage the virus, ranging from whether face masks should be required as a preventive measure to whether hydroxychloroquine is an appropriate treatment. There has been a barrage of contradictory claims related to these issues. However, in many cases, it is not possible for an individual to wait until consensus is reached before deciding on a course of action. Meanwhile, to avoid misplacing trust, trust must be well grounded. Conventional school science largely focuses on the trustworthiness of data and evidence, rather than that of the people making scientific claims. This failure to consider the human factor renders conventional school science inadequate for helping students make informed judgements about granting trust. Drawing on the literature in epistemic practice, this paper highlights four epistemic processes potentially useful for students to ground their trust, including (1) identifying whether recognition from peer reviewers has been obtained; (2) examining the credentials of those who claim expertise; (3) determining the level of expert consensus; and (4) identifying possible sources of bias. Through critical reflection on events related to the Covid-19 pandemic as examples, this paper examines how these epistemic processes inform judgement about the trustworthiness of people in terms of their competence and motives. The discussion highlights the need to develop students' capacity to identify expertise/ credentials, the nature of journals and of organisations when trust is assigned. This paper offers a frame for science educators on guiding students to place trust as a part of their decision-making process. The capability would be relevant to contexts beyond the Covid-19 pandemic. äTrust in the time of corona: epistemic practice beyond hard evidence (epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing