Science is not a matter of faith, nor of belonging to a faction. It is a method, a process, a continuous search for truth through tests and evidence. Yet on social media, scientific dissemination is taking on increasingly extreme and polarizing tones.
A study just published on Journal of Science Communication (there he is) warns: when science communication becomes a war between opposing factions, knowledge and scientific progress are the losers.
The Danger of Extreme Positions in Science Dissemination
Who has never read phrases on social media like “Whoever doubts science is an idiot” or “You are either with science or against us”? According to Professor Thiago Cruvinel ofUniversity of Sao Paulo, these polarizing messages present extreme views on specific scientific topics, triggering strong emotions and reinforcing group loyalties.
The research highlights how this type of communication, even when it supports scientifically correct positions, may actually harm the cause of science. Extreme language in fact, it tends to reject those who have doubts or cautions, instead of involving them in a constructive dialogue.
Messages that present scientific information as “indisputable” may make the writer feel good, but they risk further alienating doubtful or skeptical people.
How to Recognize Online Polarization
The research team examined 10 studies on polarization, developing a framework to identify and counter polarizing scientific messages. “Our coding system is based on 20 distinct codes, categorized into four key dimensions: one-sidedness, criticism, emphasis e discordance“, He explains Cruvine.
This structured approach allows for a detailed analysis of the elements that contribute to polarization in scientific discourse. This is a great job done by researchers: identifying recurring patterns in polarized language is a useful service to everyone.
The research highlights the importance of recognizing these communication patterns in order to actively avoid them in online scientific dissemination.
Towards more effective scientific communication
The solution proposed by the researchers is to promote scientific communication that stimulates critical thinking and recognizes the evolving nature of scientific knowledge. This approach contrasts with the current tendency to present science as a set of immutable truths.
Good scientific dissemination must encourage dialogue and constructive discussion, rather than fuelling divisions. Professor Cruvine suggests avoiding terms related to conflict or separation, even when talking about well-established scientific topics.
The challenge for science communicators today (and of course in the future) will be to find a balance between the need to clearly communicate scientific evidence and the importance of maintaining an open dialogue with all audiences.
The impact on scientific progression
A particularly interesting aspect of the research concerns the effect of polarization on scientific progress itself. When science communication becomes too rigid and dogmatic, it can hinder scientists’ ability to question and advance knowledge. In other words: if you are a scientist and you communicate your work terribly, maybe you are not a good scientist but not very emotionally intelligent. That means you are missing something, and maybe it is something important.
Science progresses through methodical doubt and the continuous testing of hypotheses. A communication environment that is too polarized can discourage this fundamental process, creating a climate in which it becomes difficult to propose new ideas or question existing knowledge.
Scientific dissemination itself serves not only to inform the public, but also to keep alive the spirit of investigation and discovery that is the basis of the scientific method. And the same goes for all those “addicted” to divisionism, who contest any research, even speculative, without realizing the damage they do to the spread of free dialogue.
The future of scientific dissemination
The challenge for the future will be to develop communication strategies that maintain scientific rigor without falling into the trap of polarization. Social media, with their tendency to promote extreme and divisive content, make this challenge particularly complex.
Professor's research Cruvine provides us with valuable tools to recognize and counter polarization in science communication. The next step will be to develop communication approaches that promote constructive and inclusive dialogue about science.
Only in this way can scientific dissemination truly achieve its goal: not only to inform, but also to involve and inspire people to think critically and actively participate in the scientific debate. And since no one is perfect, can you help us improve? Thanks.
