Ellen Phiddian
Cosmos science journalist
Ever felt the need to post something like: ‘Anyone doubting the science is an idiot’? Or ‘You either agree with the science, or you’re against us?’
It’s best to leave it in drafts – even when they’re in favour of science, polarising statements can damage its cause.
Instead of reinforcing extreme viewpoints, good online science messaging should aim to prompt critical thinking and ability of information to change, according to a new review in the Journal of Science Communication.
The review seeks to categorise these messages, aiming to help people spot when polarisation is happening online.
“Polarised messages in online science communication often present extreme views about a specific scientific topic, which can stir strong emotions, reinforce group loyalty, and deepen divisions in society,” says co-author Professor Thiago Cruvinel, from the University of São Paulo, Brazil.
“These polarised views can affect various social aspects. For example, to make people feel certain and comfortable, a one-sided message might use terms related to conflict or separation, even when talking about well-known scientific topics like climate change caused by humans.”
Framing scientific information as “unquestionable” might make the speaker feel good, but it can push cautious or doubting people further away, according to the researchers.
It can also make it harder for scientists to challenge and progress scientific knowledge.
Cruvinel and colleagues examined 10 studies on polarisation, and used them to build a framework designed to spot and challenge polarising scientific messages.
“Our codification system is grounded in a framework that encompasses 20 distinct codes, categorised into four key dimensions: sideness, criticism, emphasis, and discordance,” says Cruvinel.
“This structured approach enables a nuanced analysis of the underlying elements contributing to polarisation within scientific discourse.”
