Misplaced trust: When trust in science fosters pseudoscience
By: University of Pennsylvania (Phys.org)
This article illustrates an all too common theme in today's media and public discussion. The article has been published by a scientific organization. The article uses controversies that include science to present points. But the article is not about science.
The article is discussing how to control the message. The points presented in the article apply to pseudo-science, pseudo-sociology, pseudo-law, pseudo-economics, pseudo-politics, and, even, pseudo-activism. Science serves the same purpose as mashed potatoes on a plate; shaped, molded, and gussied up to trick a diner into believing a 2 star meal is a 5 star dining experience.
The appeal to 'trust the science' isn't really about science, either. That's actually an appeal to trust expert authority without skepticism. The seeded article swirls the mashed potatoes to divert everyone's attention onto science, itself, rather than the role of expert authority in using science to influence public opinion. The authors of the article are using the tools of misinformation to control the message, too.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The COVID-19 pandemic and the politicization of health-prevention measures such as vaccination and mask-wearing have highlighted the need for people to accept and trust science.
But trusting science isn't enough.
A new study finds that people who trust science are more likely to believe and disseminate false claims containing scientific references than people who do not trust science. Reminding people of the value of critical evaluation reduces belief in false claims, but reminding them of the value of trusting science does not.
"We conclude that trust in science, although desirable in many ways, makes people vulnerable to pseudoscience," the researchers write. "These findings have implications for science broadly and the application of psychological science to curbing misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic."
"People are susceptible to being deceived by the trappings of science," said co-author Dolores Albarracin, the Alexandra Heyman Nash Penn Integrates Knowledge University Professor of the University of Pennsylvania. She said, for example, that COVID-19 vaccines have been the target of false claims that they contain pollutants or other dangerous ingredients. "It's deception but it's pretending to be scientific. So people who are taught to trust science and normally do trust science can be fooled as well."
Albarracin, a social psychologist and director of the Science of Science Communication Division of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, said, "What we need are people who also can be critical of information. A critical mindset can make you less gullible and make you less likely to believe in conspiracy theories."
The study, conducted by Albarracin and colleagues when she was in her former position at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, was published recently in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.
The experiments: Misinformation about a virus and GMOs
For the study, researchers conducted four preregistered experiments with online participants. The researchers created two fictitious stories—one about a virus created as a bioweapon, mirroring claims about the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19, and the other about an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory about the effects of genetically modified organisms or GMOs on tumors.
The invented stories contained references to either scientific concepts and scientists who claimed to have done research on the topic or descriptions from people identified as activists. Participants in each experiment, ranging from 382 to 605 people, were randomly assigned to read either the scientific or non-scientific versions of the stories.
Findings
What the researchers found was that among people who did not have trust in science, the presence of scientific content in a story did not have a significant effect. But people who did have higher levels of trust in science were more likely to believe the stories with scientific content and more likely to disseminate them.
In the fourth experiment, participants were prompted to have either a 'trust in science' or a 'critical evaluation' mindset. Those primed to have a critical mindset were less likely to believe the stories, whether or not the stories used seemingly scientific references. "The critical mindset makes you less gullible, regardless of the information type," Albarracin said.
"People need to understand how science operates and how science arrives at its conclusions," Albarracin added. "People can be taught what sources of information to trust and how to validate that information. It's not just a case of trusting science, but having the ability to be more critical and understand how to double-check what information is really about."
The lead author, postdoctoral researcher Thomas C. O'Brien of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, added, "Although trust in science has important societal benefits, it is not a panacea that will protect people against misinformation. Spreaders of misinformation commonly reference science. Science communication cannot simply urge people to trust anything that references science, and instead should encourage people to learn about scientific methods and ways to critically engage with issues that involve scientific content."
The researchers concluded that
- "although cynicism of science could have disastrous impacts, our results suggest that advocacy for trusting science must go beyond scientific labels, to focus on specific issues, critical evaluation, and the presence of consensus among several scientists...
- Fostering trust in the 'healthy skepticism' inherent to the scientific process may also be a critical element of protecting against misinformation ...
- Empowering people with knowledge about the scientific validation process and the motivation to be critical and curious may give audiences the resources they need to dismiss fringe but dangerous pseudoscience."
Tags
Who is online
53 visitors
Distrusting the scientist is not the same as denying the science. And many expert scientists are presenting pseudo-science supported by their authoritative status.
Trusting the messenger, without skepticism, is where pseudo-science comes from. It's really not about the science, at all.
Correct!
It makes sense to trust science. Science is a discipline and a body of knowledge that seeks truth about reality. The scientific method with its demand for falsifiability and predictability, and in particular the final steps of peer review and independent reproduction (reproducibility) are well-honed and proven effective methods for filtering out human bias (even when unknown to the researcher), errors and dishonesty.
Science is arguably the best means we have for approximating truth of reality.
The problem is human beings spinning their tales while exploiting (abusing) the well-earned credibility of science. It does not matter what a particular human being declares, what matters is the evidence and reason based findings of science. Human beings can and do spin tales; science, however, does not.
Trusting Anthony Fauci doesn't have anything to do with trusting the science. The science wouldn't collapse without Anthony Fauci.
It also makes sense to be skeptical of scientific pronouncements. Peer review is based upon skepticism of the science; not upon acceptance of scientific credentials. Skepticism is an important tool necessary for the scientific method.
Reality includes many features, factors, and elements that science is incapable of approximating. By limiting ourselves to scientific truths we give up an understanding of the whole of reality.
The problem is exploitation and abuse of authority. The historical examples extend well beyond science. And science is not exempt from abuse of authority.
I did not mention Fauci. But you apparently want to try to discredit Fauci and are willing to derail your own seed to do so.
Correct. You are effectively paraphrasing what I wrote.
Pick a word then Nerm. If you do not like reality then use another word that you can deal with. Nit-picking.
Correct, human beings behaving poorly. Paraphrasing what I wrote.
Yes, I am essentially paraphrasing what you wrote. I am not disagreeing with you. I felt that what you wrote needed some additional points to expand the discussion and explore the topic more fully.
No, you did not mention Fauci. I mentioned Fauci. What point are you attempting to make? Are you attempting to Fauci me?
The controversies concerning the Wuhan Institute of Virology are about funding and safety. Anthony Fauci used his status as an expert to steer the discussion toward a debate about science while avoiding answering questions about funding and safety. The central issues of funding and safety were Fauci'd.
Using science to steer the discussion onto interesting but not particularly relevant topics is a Fauci tactic.
I made it in my comment.
... and you now demonstrate what I was talking about in the balance of your comment.
You mean the point where you attempted to steer the discussion into a debate about discrediting Fauci; no doubt flush with arguments concerning science?
The central issue with Anthony Fauci is the source of his authority and how Fauci uses that authority. Fauci is not science and a debate over Fauci's use of authority is not about science. The use and misuse of authority is part of reality that science cannot explain.
Well written. You are correct about Fauci and his abuse of science.
No, not at all.
A demonstrable lie. My comment was:
That, Nerm, is me stating that you introduced Fauci and noting your derail. I did not then engage in a debate. I made the note and then moved on. You are the one who kept bringing Fauci into the comment stream.
Read your own comments. You are desperate to bring Fauci into this.
Don't try to blame others for your failures.
Your comment was a demonstrable lie; a false accusation.
Apparently you have not read my comments.
Do you really want to perpetuate this pointless meta in your own seed?
Nobody here said anything about trusting Fauci.
I said something about trusting Fauci. You even quoted a snippet of my comment.
Fauci says he follows the science. What's unspoken is that people are supposed to follow Fauci. That's not about trusting the science; that's about trusting the authority of Anthony Fauci.
Joe Biden says 'I trust science' so the people should trust Joe Biden. That really doesn't have anything to do with science, it's really about trusting authority. Joe Biden is not science. People trusting science don't need Joe Biden. Joe Biden has placed himself in a position of authoritative intermediary between the people and science. People don't need to trust the science; people only need to trust Joe Biden because Biden trusts the science.
The public is being expected to trust authorities who trust science. The public need not know anything about science, the public only needs to trust the authorities who know science. That's the way church religion works.
You may wish to define the discussion as meta but the discussion is not pointless. The meta argument isn't about facts or even reality; the meta argument is about interpretation according to bias.
That's the point I'm making about the seeded article. The seeded article is really discussing how to control the message; science is not that important for what was presented. The same article could have been written about pseudo-sociology, pseudo-law, pseudo-economics, pseudo-politics, and, even, pseudo-activism.
Scientists dearly love the good fight.
[removed]
The real problem comes when science is politicized and skeptics are ridiculed and even demonized
The problem is dishonest human beings seeking their objectives by any means at their disposal. Liars and thieves; scoundrels and shysters.
I'm not sure those two problems are mutually exclusive.
Which two problems? I stated one problem.
The one you identified, and the one he identified.
Dishonest opportunists have always been dangerous, be they politicians, snake oil salesmen, or witch hunters.
Also, science survives on healthy skepticism. When the skeptics are demonized for political reasons, the building blocks of scientific progress are destroyed and the morons and their manipulators take over. (I may need to use past tense in that last sentence.)
I agree those two problems are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the problem I stated was intended to be a root of the problem Greg stated.
And even, perhaps...some people who constantly attempt to derail good conversations by the sleazy tactic of using "Whaddaboudisms"!
But politicizing science is really about public figures and public officials using science to garner trust in their authority. Citing science that differs from that presented by public figures and public officials is really a challenge to their authority. It's really about trusting authority and not about science.
Politically addressing climate change necessitates authority to impose mitigating actions onto society. Public officials and public figures cite science to justify their authority. Countervailing science challenges the authority of public officials and public figures; it's not really about the science. And those in authority expend a great deal of effort attacking and dismissing countervailing science to protect their authority.
Public understanding of science really is subject to the whims of those in authority attempting to protect their authority.
There is plenty about science to mistrust or be skeptical of.
Even a well-intentioned scientific experiment can be deeply flawed. Sometimes data is presented as measuring a thing it doesn’t actually measure or can’t measure (trust in science, for example). Often, scientists will fail to consider all relevant factors related to a question, so any model or experiment they develop will be insufficient (every weather or climate model ever made, for example). This can be intentional, negligent, or it may be that it’s simply impossible to take all factors into consideration. Finally, conclusions can be reached and supported by the evidence, but other conclusions may also be valid but are ignored or never even conceptualized.
What I have described is still scientists doing their best, but you rarely hear these inherent failings cited in scientific papers or in the public dissemination of scientific findings. I think people understand that these shortcomings exist, even if only intuitively or subconsciously, and so it’s perhaps reasonable to expect a little more than “science says” when it comes time to convince people of something.
There is a difference between prudent skepticism (not believing the findings of science unless convinced by the data) and categorically doubting science itself. There are some who seem to categorically distrust science. And there seems to be a partisan push to further this.
Science itself is a discipline and a body of accumulated knowledge. The process has shown itself to be arguably the most effective means, thus far, that human beings have devised to approximate truth about reality. 100% blind trust is wrong but holding a high confidence in the process based on centuries of demonstrated results is sensible.
I suppose there could be people or politics like that, but I have seen people of all political persuasions react skeptically or even irrationally to scientific findings they didn’t like. I wouldn’t just assume, though, that someone who is skeptical on one issue is categorically distrustful of science generally. That seems like a leap of bias that isn’t really supportable.
I would not either. But I would consider someone who repeatedly speaks of 'trusting science' as a pejorative to be categorically distrustful of science. Further, the notion that science is to be 'trusted' indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of science. Scientific findings gain confidence of truth based upon empirical data, reason and verification. It is about earned confidence, not mere trust.
Best to read all the way through before reacting.
Just to toss the notion around, I don't see why it needs to be seen as a pejorative. Is it a pejorative to say that someone distrusts science? If you respect the scientific method, shouldn't you never simply trust science? There is nothing wrong with demanding that scientists show their work.
I agree. All the more reason to speak out against trusting it. And of course, it isn't the procedures people find fault with. It's the scientists themselves, and how they use the procedures. The method is only as trustworthy as the humans who employ it, and they are as fallible as anyone else.
All that said, I have neither the time nor the training to review every bit of scientific research upon which my life depends. At some point, I do have to actually trust science, trust scientists, what have you, so I can get on with my life.
No. But I was speaking of those who use 'trusting science' as a pejorative.
The method is quite sound, the results of applying the method are indeed only as good as the fallible human beings. In other words, a perfect execution of the scientific method would produce great results. Happily, most scientists come close.
Of course. I am not suggesting otherwise. We necessarily must trust those who have (and continue to) earn our trust. But the key is that trust is based on confidence that our trusted authorities are (and continue to be) truthful and that they are basing their comments on quality results of applying the scientific method.
One way to achieve this confidence is by identifying the independent replications. The degree to which a scientific finding has been verified and replicated goes to the confidence of the finding without laypersons attempting to verify this themselves.
Ultimately we should be trusting the results, not the authorities.
Exactly. You said that very well.
Ask I always say, follow the evidence to where it leads. Not to where you want it to go.
And let's remember that "Science" is a process...not an end result.
And part of that process involves testing hypotheses--- not merely speculating on what is so.
The first experiments often do not prove or disprove the hyp[othesis-- so if one gives up to soon, does that mean the process is flawed?
I have seen people of all political persuasions react skeptically or even irrationally to scientific findings they didn’t like
I am distrusdtful off several findings...but that doesn't mean I have to be feel that all Science is "a hoax"...that as a methos it always lacks all validity.
WTF???
No one here is saying that you shouldn't demand that Scientists show their work.
Who has expressed distrust in the scientific method?
Correct.
In fact, in my experience (In High School I was a "Science fanatic"...I started college as a Chem major) more often than not experiments are flawed!
But the difference between, say, between effective Scientists who are pursuing the actual truth and an uninformed layperson who is merely trying to push some political (or religious) agenda...is that when an experiment is flawed a good Scientist will investigate, and modify the next experiment....
It is said that one of the differences between an highly creative person (and that includes successful Scientists) and the average person is that the Scientist makes many, many more mistakes than the average person....