![\"\"](\"https:\/\/world.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/fakescience.jpeg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
The scientific method is rigorous. Claims and premises are supported with evidence. The\u00a0peer review system<\/a>\u00a0is designed to ensure that research is scrutinised by experts before publication. And whenever researchers lack certainty, they\u2019ll emphasise that \u201cfurther research is necessary\u201d to land on the truth.<\/p>\n Unfortunately, fake science websites are learning to appear equally rigorous in order to trick their audiences into believing fringe, debunked and bogus theories. These websites seek to take advantage of our\u00a0trust in experts<\/a>, and the methods we use to\u00a0verify information<\/a>, to lend authority to anti-science positions.<\/p>\n Some even hyperlink to\u00a0fake science<\/a>\u00a0published in what appear to be peer-reviewed journals but are in fact open access publishers who will accept anything submitted, provided their fees are paid.<\/p>\n Research shows that the anti-science movement is\u00a0escalating and globalising<\/a>. In a\u00a0recent global survey<\/a>, almost 50% of respondents said they see false or misleading information online every day. Over half of those who shared such information did so because they thought it was true at the time.<\/p>\n Fake science that masquerades as trustworthy and authoritative information is harder to spot. But by understanding the methods fake science websites are using, we can adjust our verification techniques to ensure we don\u2019t fall for their deception.<\/p>\n Fake science websites use extensive\u00a0hyperlinking<\/a>\u00a0to facilitate the appearance of trustworthiness. Hyperlinks act as\u00a0visual markers of credibility<\/a>, appearing to connect content to a source. The mere presence of a link can provide readers with a sense that a particular claim is verified and that the author has done their research.<\/p>\n You\u2019ll know from your own browsing that checking every hyperlink to read and evaluate the information cited requires effort. For those who are not well-versed in scientific principles, methodology and analytical techniques, it is even more demanding. For convenience, we often trust the presence of a link or citation as proof that the information expressed is credible.<\/p>\n Repeated posts also add to the appearance of credibility. Research has found that virtually any claim uttered by a contrarian scientist, whether it challenges the consensus on anthropogenic climate change or calls into question individual scientists, immediately gets\u00a0picked up and shared<\/a>\u00a0through the climate change blogosphere.<\/p>\n This content is copied from one site to another until dozens of websites feature the same information. The aim is not only to increase the content\u2019s visibility, but also to ensure search engine results pages are populated with the same\u00a0repeated content<\/a>.<\/p>\n Readers who attempt to verify information through \u201clateral reading<\/a>\u201d, or opening a series of tabs to read a selection of different articles, may come across several pages of results that appear to corroborate what they read on a single fake science website. Globally,\u00a024% of people<\/a>\u00a0use this verification technique. Fake science articles also hyperlink to this repeated content, increasing the likelihood that readers will see it as\u00a0legitimate<\/a>.<\/p>\n Many fake science websites never actually produce any original articles. They regurgitate anything that supports their position in order to make that position more visible, hoping that web users won\u2019t have time to figure out that a single article has been copied dozens of times.<\/p>\n The\u00a0manufacturing of doubt<\/a>\u00a0is another common strategy used across many anti-science positions. Research has shown that\u00a0the tobacco industry<\/a>\u00a0engaged with this strategy to cast doubt on links between smoking and cancer. The same strategy is now used to downplay the climate crisis.<\/p>\n Due to the sheer weight of scientific evidence of anthropogenic global warming, fake science websites avoid outright climate denial and instead critique climate concerns as overblown and climate policies as extreme. The objective is not to invalidate the position but to foster doubt about the reality of climate change.<\/p>\n To this end, articles again create the illusion of scientific rigour by referring to a selected body of evidence which is often\u00a0misinterpreted<\/a>\u00a0or not peer-reviewed. Meanwhile, research that confirms the severity of the climate crisis is labelled \u201cclimate alarmism\u201d and dismissed as \u201cdoom mongering\u201d.<\/p>\nSource material<\/strong><\/h4>\n
Manufacturing doubt<\/strong><\/h4>\n