A new study confirms what many already know: Exxon for years sowed uncertainty and doubt about climate change in the public. Should scientists reject certain funding sources?
Reports of facts' death have been greatly exaggerated. Effective communication jettisons the false dilemma in favor of a more holistic view of how people take in new information on contentious topics.
Does science have an answer to science denial? Just as being vaccinated protects you from a later full-blown infection, a bit of misinformation explained could help ward off other cases down the road.
It nurtures empathy and rational thought.
We build in extra checks and balances, including blind peer review by a second academic expert, additional scrutiny and editorial oversight.
Laser-like focus on a tiny, unimportant detail can mean you miss the gorilla in the room – a tactic climate change deniers use to cast doubt on the science.
Inflating his own grand persona is Trump's sole goal, and he doesn't care whether or not you believe him.
If someone sees or hears something they don't want to believe...they probably won't believe it.
When a search query is loaded with implicit false assumptions, Google's results don't always promote the truth.
A historian of science and technology says Trump team's request for names of Department of Energy employees working on climate change recalls worst excesses of ideology-driven science in government.
Researchers have found that today's students, despite being 'digital natives,' have a hard time distinguishing what is real and what is fake online. Metaliteracy might provide the answers.
If people can be conned into jeopardizing our children's lives, as they do when they opt out of immunizations, could they also be conned out of democracy?
Even if fake articles could be curbed and filtered news modified, there's something built into Facebook's anatomy that foments partisan rage.
The ABC failed its own accuracy test when it broadcast claims of health risks associated with wireless devices such as mobile phones.
Social media is a great way to spread science information, fast. But the online echo chamber isn't always good at separating what's valid from what's not, and being prolific doesn't make you right.