The start of the decade was big for Twitter. As we were in the midst of the pandemic, doom-scrolling like our lives depended on it, the social media giant was flooded with false facts about Covid-19. Then, there were Trump's hectic attempts to sway the public to his side by claiming that the mail-in ballot "voting system is rigged." Having no other choice, Twitter stepped in, rolling in the fact-checking labels, helping users to navigate the realm of fake news.
Of course, spotting some "science-proofed" claims are more challenging than others. For example, have you heard that people swallow eight spiders a year while they sleep? Most of us did and for a while, it sounded credible because there was no way to fact-check it. Only around 2016 was this nightmare-inducing science fact debunked, showing how easily well-disguised bogus facts can creep through our defenses.
A 2019 Ipsos survey, conducted on behalf of the Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI), shed light on this issue. The survey findings indicated that individuals often overestimate their ability to identify inaccurate information, underestimating the prevalence of misinformation.
According to the report, approximately 86% of respondents admitted to having initially believed news stories - most of them appearing on Facebook - that turned out to be false on at least one occasion. This highlights the alarming extent to which people can be susceptible to misleading information encountered online.
In order to understand how our brains intercept scientifically inaccurate information and why some of us are keen to ignore scientifically "bulletproof" facts, we reached out to Andrew Shtulman, an associate professor of psychology and cognitive science at Occidental. Although we don't discuss what happens to us when one of the longstanding scientific facts suddenly evaporates into thin air (imagine being a Pluto enthusiast when it was downgraded to a “dwarf planet"), Shtulman says that we can trace how our sponge-like brains develop an understanding of the world around us - life and death, heat and motion - at our formative years.
"These theories are adequate, but they're not perfectly accurate," Shtulman told Bored Panda in a Zoom call. "In fact, they conflict with scientific theories in many ways. And a lot of work has been done looking at how our intuitive theories shape our ability to learn science. However, there wasn't consensus in the field as to what happens to intuitive theories when you do learn a scientific theory of the same phenomenon."
This, then, led Shtulman to pursue this question further, resulting in a study which found that 1-in-4 Americans think the Sun goes around the Earth, and not vice versa. In the same survey, just 39% answered correctly (true) that "The universe began with a huge explosion" and less than half of participants agreed with the notion that "Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals." Meanwhile, just over half understood that antibiotics are not effective against viruses.
As we came to learn in recent decades, one of the most powerful, and perhaps the most worrying, causes of the rejection of scientifically sound facts lies in America's rejection of scientists. For example, a 2011 poll found that 69% of Americans think that scientists have falsified climate change research. And although this has slightly improved since then, at least when it comes to climate change, the growing distrust in science came into the spotlight during the pandemic, with only a portion of adults in the United States agreeing that scientists are on their side.
"There's always going to be a certain group of people who are just generally skeptical of institutions and authorities. That being said, there is a reason why certain conspiracies have gained traction, as opposed to any of all possible conspiracies. It's not a far stretch that the earth is flat because when we're children, we think the earth is flat," Shtulman explained. "We don't have any sign that we are actually being pulled to the center of a rotating sphere. And the same is with climate change. We get a sense that the weather's changing, but we can't sense global climate systems and large-scale climate patterns."
Another popular explanation for why some of us are more likely to brush off scientifically accurate information comes down to confirmation bias, which leads people to subconsciously cherry-pick information that aligns with their existing beliefs.
Additionally, people tend to unintentionally cherry-pick information because it is mentally easier and more appealing than processing a vast amount of available data. Instead of thoroughly analyzing all the evidence, individuals may opt to focus on a few standout points, forming their understanding of the matter based on these select pieces of information.
"It's rare for people to do their 'homework' and fact-check because so much of what we know about the world just comes from accepting the testimony of other people," told Shtulman. "Some people are naturally skeptical when they encounter information that contradicts what they've been learning in school and what the other members of their community seem to believe, but other people are more inclined to just accept that information at face value."
