#ScienceDenialism
"Getting accurate information across in the face of this science denialism is something of a minefield, as there is evidence that attempts to correct misinformation may backfire, further entrenching the beliefs of science deniers instead. In their paper, Schmid and Betsch present some good news and some bad: rebutting misinformation reduces the ensuing level of science denialism, but not enough to completely counter the effect of the original exposure to misinformation.
Denialism is not skepticism
Schmid and Betsch make a point of emphasizing that science denialism is a universe away from a healthy skepticism. In fact, skepticism of existing results is what drives research to refine and overturn existing paradigms. Denialism, the authors write, is 'dysfunctional' skepticism 'driven by how the denier would like things to be rather than what he has evidence for.'
Because this denialism springs from motivated reasoning, science advocates are scrambling to understand how to debunk misinformation in a way that motivates their target audience to accept it. Schmid and Betsch focused on strategies to counter misinformation as it is being delivered during a debate, focusing on two possible approaches: correcting misinformation and laying bare the rhetorical techniques that are being used to obfuscate the truth."
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/06/debunking-science-denialism-does-work-but-not-perfectly/
Levka /
npub1et…4e5sv
2024-11-07 19:08:05
Author Public Key
npub1et6yknexrshka5dfs72x20g5qv5h37494qp4rrqqrs4ecmkxxjps64e5svPublished at
2024-11-07 19:08:05Event JSON
{
"id": "35a933cfd208a2f60f8c938586babc31454da8675d11c76a6ecc47b0fb0b2a75",
"pubkey": "caf44b4f261c2f6ed1a98794653d14032978faa5a803518c001c2b9c6ec63483",
"created_at": 1731006485,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"t",
"sciencedenialism"
],
[
"proxy",
"https://kolektiva.social/@LevZadov/113443241018852331",
"web"
],
[
"proxy",
"https://kolektiva.social/users/LevZadov/statuses/113443241018852331",
"activitypub"
],
[
"L",
"pink.momostr"
],
[
"l",
"pink.momostr.activitypub:https://kolektiva.social/users/LevZadov/statuses/113443241018852331",
"pink.momostr"
],
[
"-"
]
],
"content": "#ScienceDenialism\n\n\"Getting accurate information across in the face of this science denialism is something of a minefield, as there is evidence that attempts to correct misinformation may backfire, further entrenching the beliefs of science deniers instead. In their paper, Schmid and Betsch present some good news and some bad: rebutting misinformation reduces the ensuing level of science denialism, but not enough to completely counter the effect of the original exposure to misinformation.\nDenialism is not skepticism\n\nSchmid and Betsch make a point of emphasizing that science denialism is a universe away from a healthy skepticism. In fact, skepticism of existing results is what drives research to refine and overturn existing paradigms. Denialism, the authors write, is 'dysfunctional' skepticism 'driven by how the denier would like things to be rather than what he has evidence for.'\n\nBecause this denialism springs from motivated reasoning, science advocates are scrambling to understand how to debunk misinformation in a way that motivates their target audience to accept it. Schmid and Betsch focused on strategies to counter misinformation as it is being delivered during a debate, focusing on two possible approaches: correcting misinformation and laying bare the rhetorical techniques that are being used to obfuscate the truth.\"\n\nhttps://arstechnica.com/science/2019/06/debunking-science-denialism-does-work-but-not-perfectly/",
"sig": "bcff1be8d7621611975ef1848526f94b62e1875af1900dbe75da99d676d87a94689a158e49ae0373874eb3e7316841853c966b9b09c771934774607ec521786a"
}