Twenty years ago, a Texas court decided Winfrey hadn’t defamed the state’s cattle industry. At the time, local media struggled to explain the science at stake in the case.
The internet has allowed pseudoscience to flourish. Artificial intelligence could help steer people away from the bad information.
The first Trump administration also used words like ‘transparency,’ ‘reproducibility’ and ‘uncertainty’ − to try to block regulators from using important health studies when writing pollution rules.
There’s a big difference between science and pseudoscience. But if people don’t understand how science works in the first place, it’s very easy for them to fall for the pseudoscience.
Donald Trump has been known to spread misinformation. This gives us a great opportunity to hone our critical thinking skills.
One Nation Senator-elect Malcolm Roberts lauds Galileo as a hero who turned scientific consensus on its head. But the ‘Galileo gambit’ is just one weapon in the climate conspiracists’ arsenal.
Exxon wasn’t the only giant corporation to have climate scientists in the 1980s. Scientists at GM and Ford also honed in on climate change, but they – and their companies – took very different paths.
A psychologist explains how opponents of climate policies use a common thinking error to manipulate the public – and why people are so susceptible.
For science to have a meaningful impact on a group of people, new information needs to spread between trusted members of that community.
Even before Jacqueline Ho enrolled in her first environmental studies course at college, her thinking about climate change had been shaped during her years growing up in Singapore reading books by the…
