How Can Philosophers Rebuild Trust in Science?

"In today's world, we are flooded with information, especially through social media. Such information is often poorly checked, and it can sometimes be difficult to distinguish the "real" from the "false," that is, accurate information from misinformation (see Thagard 2024). The circulation of misinformation in public discourse is not without consequences; it frequently has a negative impact on individual decision-making, community health, and trust in institutions."

"Given the overload of information to which we are exposed, the public increasingly doubts its credibility and therefore becomes suspicious and disappointed in science, which has traditionally been considered as the authority of human knowledge. While science continuously provides new insights about climate change, health, or technology, an increasing number of people doubt its conclusions. For example, despite the expert consensus that climate change is real and that anthropogenic factors influence it, there are significant resistances, especially from various oil and political lobbies."

"In medicine, despite strong evidence of the safety of the MMR vaccine against measles, mumps, and rubella-and the scientific consensus that it does not cause childhood autism-parents are still hesitant to vaccinate their children. This hesitancy is often fueled by misinformation stemming from the debunked paper by Wakefield et al. (1998). Such cases highlight the crucial role of effective science communication in countering skepticism and science denialism."

Social media floods people with poorly checked information, making it difficult to distinguish accurate information from misinformation. Misinformation negatively affects individual decision-making, community health, and institutional trust. Misinformation encourages conspiracy theories that range from harmless beliefs to socially harmful actions causing displacement or fatalities. Public information overload increases skepticism and disappointment in science, undermining science's role as an epistemic authority. Resistance to scientific conclusions appears in climate denial influenced by political and oil interests, and in vaccine hesitancy fueled by false claims such as the debunked Wakefield paper. Effective science communication is essential to counter skepticism because public trust depends on both evidence robustness and communication quality.

Read at Apaonline