Are there 34,000 human emotions? Deconstructing patterns of scientific misinformation.

IF 2.8 1区哲学 Q1 MEDICAL ETHICS

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2024-08-28 DOI:10.1080/08989621.2024.2393813

Jonas Polfuß

{"title":"Are there 34,000 human emotions? Deconstructing patterns of scientific misinformation.","authors":"Jonas Polfuß","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2024.2393813","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Scientific misinformation is a much-discussed topic, and the COVID-19 crisis has highlighted the importance of reliability in science and research. However, limiting misinformation is complicated because of the growing number of communication channels, in which scientific and nonscientific content are often mixed.Methods: This case study combines the examination of references, online observation, and a content and frequency analysis to investigate the dissemination of scientific misinformation in the interplay of different genres and media.Results: Using the example of the claimed existence of 34,000 human emotions, this study demonstrates how questionable statements are spread in science, popular science, and pseudoscience, making it particularly challenging to track and correct them.Conclusions: The findings highlight epistemic authority, trust, and injustice within and between scientific and nonscientific communities. The author argues that, in the digital age, researchers should defend and monitor scientific principles beyond academia.","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1-20"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2393813","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Scientific misinformation is a much-discussed topic, and the COVID-19 crisis has highlighted the importance of reliability in science and research. However, limiting misinformation is complicated because of the growing number of communication channels, in which scientific and nonscientific content are often mixed.

Methods: This case study combines the examination of references, online observation, and a content and frequency analysis to investigate the dissemination of scientific misinformation in the interplay of different genres and media.

Results: Using the example of the claimed existence of 34,000 human emotions, this study demonstrates how questionable statements are spread in science, popular science, and pseudoscience, making it particularly challenging to track and correct them.

Conclusions: The findings highlight epistemic authority, trust, and injustice within and between scientific and nonscientific communities. The author argues that, in the digital age, researchers should defend and monitor scientific principles beyond academia.

查看原文本刊更多论文

人类有 34000 种情感吗？解构科学错误信息的模式。

背景：科学误导是一个备受讨论的话题，COVID-19 危机凸显了科学和研究可靠性的重要性。然而，由于传播渠道日益增多，科学和非科学内容往往混杂在一起，因此限制误导信息的传播变得十分复杂：本案例研究结合了参考文献审查、在线观察以及内容和频率分析，以调查在不同体裁和媒体的相互作用下科学错误信息的传播情况：本研究以声称存在 34,000 种人类情感为例，展示了科学、大众科学和伪科学中的可疑言论是如何传播的，从而使追踪和纠正这些言论变得尤为困难：研究结果凸显了科学界和非科学界内部和之间的认识论权威、信任和不公正。作者认为，在数字时代，研究人员应在学术界之外捍卫和监督科学原则。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance MEDICAL ETHICS-

CiteScore

4.90

自引率

14.70%

发文量

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance is devoted to the examination and critical analysis of systems for maximizing integrity in the conduct of research. It provides an interdisciplinary, international forum for the development of ethics, procedures, standards policies, and concepts to encourage the ethical conduct of research and to enhance the validity of research results. The journal welcomes views on advancing the integrity of research in the fields of general and multidisciplinary sciences, medicine, law, economics, statistics, management studies, public policy, politics, sociology, history, psychology, philosophy, ethics, and information science. All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor, and if found suitable for further consideration, to peer review by independent, anonymous expert referees.