Scientific information has never been more accessible than it is today. While this increase in availability encourages consciousness and collaboration, it has also contributed to a worrying increase in erroneous information and misinformation, especially in the United States.
Recent PEW research data indicates a decrease in public confidence in science, without a doubt 57% of people who believe that science has had a mostly positive impact on society, below 73% in 2019. In addition, 34% of adults now see the impact of science as equally positive and negative.
The decrease in confidence in science comes from several factors namely; Fast propagation of erroneous information online / social networks, political polarization, bad irreproducible scientific documents and confidence in institutions. Social networks amplify false information, while scientific problems have politicized. Bad communication, past controversies and the complexity of science also contribute to skepticism. The publication of low quality articles in magazines, often due to lax pairs, the pressure to publish or predatory magazines, undermines confidence in science.
Retractions and contradictory findings further combust skepticism, which makes it difficult for the public to distinguish reliable research from defective studies. In addition, confirmation bias and information overload make it more difficult for people to distinguish credible sources from unreliable.
To get to the negators of science, interact with empathy, not with confrontation. Give yourself in shared values and use simple and related explanations. Promote critical thinking by asking questions instead of promoting the facts. Address erroneous information with patience and credible sources. Building trust through respectful dialogue is key to changing perspectives. The reconstruction of confidence in science requires improving transparency, the strengthening of peer review and holding magazines for quality. Scientists should communicate clearly, recognize uncertainties and commit to the public. Media literacy and critical thinking should promote to combat erroneous information. Institutions must remain independent of political and corporate influence while guaranteeing ethical research practices.
Science, in essence, is a constant interrogation process and refinement. The results are not destined to be blindly accepted, but rather scrutinized, proven and debated. This openness to scrutiny is what drives scientific progress: ideas are only strengthened when they undergo a rigorous exam and a peer review. Emphasizing that scientific knowledge evolves through continuous dialogue and evidence -based criticism can help the public to better understand that science is not infallible. Rather, it is a tool to seek the truth, and it is in the very nature of science to challenge, question and improve itself over time.
One of the most effective ways to counteract erroneous information is through education. Scientific education must be integrated into daily conversations, not only taught in classrooms. By promoting curiosity and a basic understanding of scientific principles from an early age, we can help people develop the critical thinking skills necessary to navigate the complex panorama of modern information. Encourage the public to ask questions, explore evidence and be open to change their views when present with new information can gradually restore confidence in science. Educational initiatives should also focus on demystifying the scientific process, which shows that science is not a collection of absolute truths, but a dynamic method to seek knowledge, where findings evolve and are open to scrutiny.
As we strive to rebuild confidence in science, it is important to reflect on where we believe the erosion of trust begins. What experiences or factors have taken it, as members of the public or scientists, to feel more distant from science? Is it the way in which information is communicated, or perhaps the increase in erroneous information? In the conversations that I have had with several scientists, they have shared concerns about the growing division between the scientific community and the general public. Many feel that their research is often misrepresented or misunderstanding, which further increases skepticism. In addition, the challenge of effectively communicating complex science in an era of rapid information exchange has been observed as an important barrier. Our perspectives are key to promoting a constructive dialogue that can strengthen ties between science and society.
Let’s work together to understand the roots of skepticism and find ways to address them for a more informed and committed future.
Additional reading:
Lupia, A.; Allison, DB; Jamieson, kh; Heimberg, J.; Skipper, M.; Wolf, SM trends in the public confidence of the United States in science and opportunities for progress. Proc. Natl Acade SCI. United States, 2024, 121 (11), E2319488121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2319488121.
#Overcome #erroneous #information #connect #science #denaders
