Reconceptualizing Epistemic Dependence for Future Scientific Literacy: A Lesson from the LK-99 Case

Today's science education faces the imperative task of developing students’ competency to navigate misinformation while broadening the scope of scientific literacy. Traditionally, the concept of epistemic dependence, which encourages public trust in professional scientists, has supported this goal. However, the current landscape of science challenges the notions of experts with unanimous opinions and ‘the public’ as passive recipients of scientific information. In response, this case study examines the LK-99 incident, which involved a claimed discovery in the historic room-temperature and ambient-pressure superconductor, employing the Hype Cycle as the analytical framework. Data were collected on internet search traffic, discourse within the scientific community, mass media articles, and social media posts from July to December 2023, utilizing various online data analytics platforms. The researchers (1) quantitatively identified patterns in search trends, document sentiments, and associated word tokens related to LK-99, (2) qualitatively analyzed the shifting standpoints of stakeholders, the scientific community, mass media, and social media, and (3) synthesized these findings within the Hype Cycle framework. The results illustrate how the misinformation about LK-99 rapidly spread online (phase 1), leading to disagreements among scientists and confusion among the public, alongside erratic behavior in the stock market (phase 2). Ironically, the stakeholders' positioning themselves as scientists facilitated the scientific community's falsification of the claim (phase 3). We discuss the methodological and theoretical implications of this case and propose a reconceptualization of epistemic dependence centered on the scientific community as a whole and its collectively committed process of resolving uncertainty and verifying knowledge claims.