“Science” makes people think optimistically about the future.
WIN-Initiative/Stone via Getty Images
When you ask Americans what the word 'science' brings to mind, a majority respond 'hope.' Using this built-in brand can help communicate important science messages.
The more politicized an issue, the harder it is for people to absorb contradictory evidence.
Drew Angerer/Getty Images News via Getty Images
Whether in situations relating to scientific consensus, economic history or current political events, denialism has its roots in what psychologists call 'motivated reasoning.'
Social media giants such as Facebook have been blamed for helping spread misinformation. But the problem runs deeper than that.
Every day, new "alternative facts" are peddled in the public realm. But misinformation is not solely a modern problem - its origins are as old as humanity.
The study of caribou ecology in the Sahtú region of Canada’s Northwest Territories shows how western science and Indigenous Traditional Knowledge are used together.
Science is a multicultural enterprise that benefits from and indeed requires competing views.
People reject science such as that about climate change and vaccines, but readily believe scientists about solar eclipses, like this one reflected on the sunglasses of a man dangerously watching in Nicosia, Cyprus, in a 2015 file photo.
(AP Photo/Petros Karadjias)
People universally believe scientists' solar eclipse calendars, but vaccine warnings or climate predictions are forms of science that strangely do not enjoy equivalent acceptance.
Left, right, populist, elitist: there are many different ways to be anti-science.
Whether you're talking about climate change, vaccination or agriculture, the term "anti-science" means different things in different political contexts.
A shot of fake news now and your defenses are raised in the future?
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.
Scientists address the prime minister at last year’s Science Meets Parliament.
Today is the start of Science Meets Parliament, which helps our nation's leaders embrace the latest scientific evidence.
Some questioned the concept of the Women’s March on Washington. Now scientists will march against Donald Trump. Is that a good idea?
Trump is not science's biggest problem.
When scientists stand up, do they lose standing?
In the wake of the Flint water crisis and with a new notably anti-science president, U.S. scientists are reevaluating how to navigate the tension between speaking out and a fear of losing research funding.
If someone is spouting pseudo-science, should scientists risk legitimising them by getting into a debate with them?
Some scientists refuse to debate or appear with those they consider to be unscientific. But is this the best approach to combat anti-science narratives?
2015 saw us complete our exploration of all nine planets (including dwarf planet Pluto) in our solar system.
2015 was a year where we expanded our view of the universe, embraced new technologies and got a hint of the profound changes to come.
Science denial can come in many forms, but you need to be careful when debunking it.
Debunking science denial in the wrong way can end up reinforcing it. Here's how to cut through make the facts stick.
Socrates made people think, but he also made them rather irritated.
Earlier this year, the ethicist Walter-Sinnot Armstrong asked whether philosophers were out of touch with, even contemptuous, of ordinary people and everyday life. The picture he paints isn’t flattering…
Exposing people to weak forms of anti-science arguments can help them respond when they are hit by the real thing.
A small dose of a weak form of anti-science can inoculate people against the real thing, just like a vaccine.