Genuine versus bogus scientific controversies: the case of statins

Martini, Carlo; Andreoletti, Mattia

doi:10.1007/s40656-021-00456-w

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Lay evaluation of science-related disinformation is harder than other forms of disinformation (e.g. political) because in the former case the lines between expertise and pseudoexpertise are blurred, and incompetent or otherwise biased sources pose as expert sources on topics like epidemiology or climate change 5 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lateral reading and monetary incentives to spot disinformation about science

Panizza

Ronzani

Martini

et al. 2022

Sci Rep

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Disinformation about science can impose enormous economic and public health burdens. A recently proposed strategy to help online users recognise false content is to follow the techniques of professional fact checkers, such as looking for information on other websites (lateral reading) and looking beyond the first results suggested by search engines (click restraint). In two preregistered online experiments (N = 5387), we simulated a social media environment and tested two interventions, one in the form of a pop-up meant to advise participants to follow such techniques, the other based on monetary incentives. We measured participants’ ability to identify whether information was scientifically valid or invalid. Analysis of participants’ search style reveals that both monetary incentives and pop-up increased the use of fact-checking strategies. Monetary incentives were overall effective in increasing accuracy, whereas the pop-up worked when the source of information was unknown. Pop-up and incentives, when used together, produced a cumulative effect on accuracy. We suggest that monetary incentives enhance content relevance, and could be combined with fact-checking techniques to counteract disinformation.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lateral reading and monetary incentives to spot disinformation about science

Panizza

Ronzani

Martini

et al. 2022

Sci Rep

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The layperson may then resort to typical markers of excellence such as prestige, membership to respected institutions etc.—what Anderson (Anderson, 2011 ) describes as second-order assessment of the trustworthiness of experts—but she will typically not be in a position to evaluate the soundness of the scientific content being offered. Relatedly, she may fall prey to discourse that presents itself as scientifically grounded, but which is in fact meant to promote the interests of specific individuals or groups, 18 such as in bogus scientific controversies motivated by spurious interests (Martini & Andreoletti, 2021 ). Moreover, the public may also develop unrealistic and unreasonable expectations of what scientific research can deliver, based on misunderstandings of what scientific practice is really like.…”

Section: The Three-tiered Model Applied To Pementioning

confidence: 99%

Public engagement and argumentation in science

Ivani

Novaes

2022

Euro Jnl Phil Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Public engagement is one of the fundamental pillars of the European programme for research and innovation Horizon 2020. The programme encourages engagement that not only fosters science education and dissemination, but also promotes two-way dialogues between scientists and the public at various stages of research. Establishing such dialogues between different groups of societal actors is seen as crucial in order to attain epistemic as well as social desiderata at the intersection between science and society. However, whether these dialogues can actually help attaining these desiderata is far from obvious. This paper discusses some of the costs, risks, and benefits of dialogical public engagement practices, and proposes a strategy to analyse these argumentative practices based on a three-tiered model of epistemic exchange. As a case study, we discuss the phenomenon of vaccine hesitancy, arguably a result of suboptimal public engagement, and show how the proposed model can shed new light on the problem.

show abstract

Non Experts: Which Ones Would Trust You?

Pérez-González

Jiménez‐Buedo

2023

Social Epistemology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Genuine versus bogus scientific controversies: the case of statins

Cited by 4 publications

References 48 publications

Lateral reading and monetary incentives to spot disinformation about science

Lateral reading and monetary incentives to spot disinformation about science

Public engagement and argumentation in science

Non Experts: Which Ones Would Trust You?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About