Misinformation, disinformation and bad science

Learning the ways in which science information can be undermined or falsified helps us to recognise and counter false information.

Sometimes science research can be misinterpreted by the media and on social media because of a lack of understanding about how science works. This is usually referred to as ‘bad science’ and it results in misinformation. More intentional science disinformation can use faulty reasoning and pseudoscience to undermine facts.

Cherry picking – choosing data that ‘fits’

See more

People who select evidence to confirm a particular viewpoint, while ignoring significant contradictory evidence, are accused of cherry picking. This practice can lead to incomplete or misleading information.

Rights: Charles Nadeau, Creative Commons 2.0

Recognising bad science

Many of the skills we use to recognise false information online will also enable us to recognise bad science. Understanding science as a knowledge system is also important for students to be able to call out or question dodgy scientific claims and ideas.

Science is a knowledge system – a way of thinking about and understanding the world. It has its own distinct vocabulary and conventions. ‘Understanding about science’ is a strand of the Nature of Science in the New Zealand curriculum. It explores these ideas:

• Science is a way of explaining the world.

• Science knowledge changes over time.

• Science investigations are informed by current scientific theories and aim to collect evidence that will be interpreted through processes of logical argument.

• Scientific explanations are empirically based – they are based on observation of some kind and are testable.

• Science research includes information on how the research was carried out so results can be replicated.

• Scientific research papers are peer reviewed.

• There is no one scientific method.

The article Read news like a scientist and A Guide to Spotting Bad Science can help to equip students with the basics when looking at science news and opinions.

Spotting bad science

See more

Many people get their science news from media and not the original published science paper. There are multiple ways that people can misreport on science research due to a lack of understanding of science processes. This chart is a rough guide to some common mistakes in science reporting. 

Download a PDF of this image here.

Rights: Compound Interest, CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0

Logical fallacies

Logical fallacies are intentional or unintentional mistakes in reasoning that undermine the validity of an argument. They often involve flawed logic, misleading tactics or irrelevant points. They can make an argument appear convincing even though it isn’t. Recognising logical fallacies is essential for evaluating the strength of an argument and engaging in clear, rational discourse.

A well-known logical fallacy is cherry picking - when a person making an argument chooses a single study or piece of research to support their view. This differs from usual scientific processes. Scientists look at a variety of different studies and identify the weight of evidence as the best supporting information at that moment in time.

Literature reviews or reports by trustworthy organisations can be helpful when trying to figure out the veracity of a statement or article. A literature review is a comprehensive analysis and summary of existing research and work on a particular topic or research question. Its purpose is to provide an overview of current knowledge, identify gaps and establish the context for new research.

The Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment are examples of organisations that prepare reports to synthesise topical research for non-scientists.

Academic papers can be complex for students and laypeople. If the summary and conclusion of the paper are too complex, try searching for a review by a reputable science magazine or news source.

Pseudoscience 

Pseudoscience refers to claims, beliefs or practices that are presented as scientific but lack the evidence, methodology or rigour required of science. Pseudoscience often uses scientific-sounding language.

Pseudoscience is not bad science – bad science often comes from incorrect conclusions or misunderstanding of valid scientific data. Pseudoscience is intentionally deceptive.

Common features of pseudoscience can include:

• scientific-sounding terms that are misleading or false

• using science language in a non-typical way

• claims that are vague or inflated

• claims and data that are not able to be tested

• lack of evidence or links to data and research to back up claims

• use of anecdotal evidence

• claims of conspiracy or a cover-up by science, government or others.

Can you spot the pseudoscience?

See more

Look at this claim regarding a bottled water product. Can you spot the pseudoscience?

NOTE: We have redacted brand and site information from this product but the copy remains verbatim.  

Rights: University of Waikato Te Whare Wānanga o Waikato

Examples of pseudoscience can be found in the beauty and wellness industries, food and supplement marketing, some alternative medicines and health products. Many of these use pseudoscience to sell products.

Why does pseudoscience persist?

Many people continue to believe pseudoscience even when it has been debunked. Like misinformation and disinformation, there are many reasons why people believe it:

• People are drawn to simple explanations, especially for complex issues.

• Pseudoscience often provides comfort or hope – for example, a miracle cure.

• A lack of critical thinking or access to accurate information.

• Sunk cost fallacy – if a person has invested a lot of time, effort and/or money in a pseudoscience, it may be emotionally difficult to walk away, even when evidence contradicts their beliefs.

• Confirmation bias and selection bias can distort how people perceive, interpret and prioritise information.

• The marketing of products or services using pseudoscience.

• Desperation – when traditional treatments and medicines have not worked for illness and disease, we can become desperate for new solutions.

• Dunning–Kruger effect – a cognitive bias where non-experts in a field overestimate their competence and knowledge.