The Growing Divide: Scientific Literacy and Trust in Science

Originally posted on substack <3

I'm not sure if it's a good sign that I feel disconnected from conspiracy theorists. I don't know if it's a result of my education in science, or if my high education status itself is the cause of feeling increasingly disconnected from science deniers, as the gap between the scientifically literate and illiterate grows ever wider.

The two groups are not talking and they do not trust each other. This mirrors what we see within other debates in society - an increasing polarization. In this article, I want to present the challenges to scientific literacy in the future of science in our community, and subsequently the health and safety of us as a people.

The Rise of Skepticism

Skepticism is on the rise. We see policies based on hard evidence regarded as controversial, and therefore acceptable to reject. How can it be that scientific topics such as vaccine safety and climate change are treated as controversial opinions when the consensus is that the evidence concretely supports these positions?

Skepticism turning into pseudoscience and misinformation is painful to witness, because skepticism is the important first step to critical thinking. So we must step back and think about skepticism itself. Why does it occur?

Thanks for reading Unstoppable She | Dagný's space! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Share

Skepticism is often motivated by the impression that one cannot be certain about a fact. Of course, you cannot be certain about anything unless you have it concretely in your hands, understand it, or it makes logical sense to you, allowing you to draw a logical conclusion from the evidence available. But how can you have certainty based on these criteria if you lack the tools and education to assess the evidence? You cannot - you can only trust the people who have devoted decades of their lives to studying these areas, collecting data, controlling for biases and mistakes, and analyzing, reviewing, and publishing their findings in a transparent fashion. Yet when these experts present the findings of their life's work, many do not trust them. Why?

Trust and Expertise

So perhaps it's less about skepticism and more about a lack of trust. Genuine skepticism is the foundation of the scientific method - questioning, testing, and revising based on evidence. Medical science is one of the most transparent fields; you can fact-check literally anything. You can, but many will not, and I'm going to explore why.

It's important for us all to listen to each other, open our minds, and try to see the common ground. I realize some readers might think, "Here's another person trying to convince me to change my opinion." But please, consider that in the end, we are on the same team. Dismissing information and distrusting science can harm us all, regardless of political affiliation or beliefs.

The US Surgeon General and World Health Organization have released statements declaring health misinformation a threat to public health - including you - because it leads people to ignore science-based recommendations. At the FDA, this risks even basic communications about food and drug safety. If the FDA says a food additive is safe, there will be people who believe the FDA lacks all credibility, leading them to conclude that the FDA is lying.

Understanding Scientific Literacy

Let's define scientific illiteracy. Scientific illiteracy is the lack of scientific literacy, so perhaps we should first define scientific literacy. Scientific literacy is a combination of factual knowledge of scientific topics combined with critical thinking ability - skepticism that comes from understanding scientific reasoning. According to research, people on Earth are increasingly scientifically illiterate.

Why is this happening when we live in a time where information has never been more freely available, and fact-checking is easy, encouraged, and sometimes automated? Why are there more people promoting conspiracy theories and mistrusting official sources of information than ever?

Barriers to Scientific Understanding

One factor that came to mind while writing this article was academic gatekeeping. Real scientific papers have paywalls, primarily to profit the journals (the scientists themselves don't see any of that profit and most often have to pay to submit their articles). Even with open source, free-access academic articles, there's also the gatekeeping of accessibility due to the high level of jargon.

Insane reading levels are required to understand academic studies. A study by Cochrane found that on average, academic "plain language" studies - those attempting to be written in accessible language - scored at a reading level of grade 12 or above. This means that many people who have completed only mandatory education cannot read these articles, as the average person today reads at an eighth-grade level. Over half of the population who speaks English cannot read these studies.

Historical Context

When did scientific illiteracy become so widespread? I found a paper from 1983 published in the American Air and Space Forces magazine expressing concern about plummeting scientific literacy. They projected that the numbers of scientifically literate 18-year-olds would decline by 21% by 1992. This is amusing to think about in 2025, as we compare ourselves to the "good old days" of when I was born in 2000.

The paper attributed this decline to increasing minority populations through immigration and higher birth rates in low socioeconomic areas. They based this conclusion on comparing birth rates and immigration rates with public school mathematics achievement scores and Armed Forces Vocational Aptitude Battery test results, where they found significant variation by sex, racial background, and geographic region.

Education and Conspiracy Theories

[An article I found through NIH] stated that people with higher education are less likely than those with lower education to believe in conspiracy theories, though it remains unclear why these effects occur. Many people have a susceptibility to conspiracy theories because it makes them feel they know something that others don't, which could be a subconscious compensation for feeling unintelligent, less capable, or inadequate.

Scientific literacy has been found to reduce belief in conspiracy theories. Improving people's ability to assess evidence through increased scientific literacy makes them less likely to endorse such beliefs. The key aspects contributing to this effect are scientific knowledge and scientific reasoning.

Cultural Capital and Scientific Understanding

A paper from 2004 analyzed data from the PISA studies of Nordic countries, which already have relatively narrow income gaps, finding that economic capital was not strongly related to scientific literacy, but cultural capital was. The PISA data showed surprisingly strong relationships between cultural capital and scientific literacy, while the relationship with economic capital was weak.

What do they mean by cultural capital? The definition of socioeconomic status in PISA is based on three sub-concepts: economic capital (financial resources), cultural capital (familiarity with high-status cultural practices like classical music, literature, theater), and social capital (networks that can be used in different situations). In PISA, socioeconomic status is defined as the sum of these three forms of capital, meaning that a person or family can possess different amounts of each. This means that children exposed to what was traditionally called "high culture" - fine arts and sciences - are more likely to be scientifically literate.

Understanding Willful Ignorance

For those who remain ignorant of science, I was curious whether this ignorance is willful or not. Willful ignorance means actively and obviously avoiding something that requires attention; the facts are available, but the person has made a deliberate decision to remain ignorant. Why would someone do this?

Perhaps because the truth isn't comfortable - they're in denial as a way to regulate negative emotions. It could also be to protect one's self-image. For example: "I am a Christian, therefore I will ignore evidence that suggests God does not exist"; "I am a man, therefore I will ignore evidence that gender is a social construct"; "I am not a sheep, therefore I will ignore evidence provided by the government."

When something is such a deep part of one's identity, accepting a different truth - as science often requires us to do when new evidence emerges - challenges one's beliefs and forces examination, open-mindedness, and revision of previous hypotheses. This is uncomfortable and causes personal conflict, which can be avoided by protecting one's self-image through ignorance.

There's also the possibility of cognitive inattentiveness - people don't like to think more than necessary. People are mentally lazy. If given the choice between relaxing with television or contemplating whether everything you know in life is wrong, which would you choose? Which is more comfortable?

The American Medical Association published a meta-analysis researching the motivations behind willful ignorance and found that people who were more willfully ignorant were less likely to be altruistic. They demonstrated this by giving people a choice between receiving $50 (with $50 donated to charity) or $60 (with nothing donated to charity), and whether they wanted to know the consequences of their choice. Those who wanted more money were more likely to avoid learning about the consequences of taking more money. This suggests that people don't like to think too deeply - they're intellectually lazy.

Trust and Credibility

Willful ignorance could also stem from skepticism about information sources, especially from distrust in authorities. We live in a world where everyone's perceived credibility is treated as equal, but is it? And is this a problem?

In our society, we strive to hold everyone equal in the sense that our lives hold equal intrinsic value. But are we equal in the value of all our external qualities? Absolutely not. Credibility is the quality of being trusted and believed. It's determined by a person's qualifications to make a statement and their perceived political neutrality or alignment. A logical fallacy presents itself when we assume someone with the same alignments as ourselves is more correct or intelligent - a form of confirmation bias.

People attribute credibility to trustworthiness, expertise, and attractiveness. We are more attracted to people who look like us biologically, and we trust people who hold the same political values. Is it then that if the two other factors are absent or opposite, expertise is downright ignored? Or must one meet two out of the three criteria?

Frustratingly, being presented with facts and education often makes people hold more firmly to conspiracy theories and misinformation. This is a troubling reality, because if we could just supply the correct information in sufficient quantity, it would simply be a numbers game, and eventually the right information would be distributed to everyone, eliminating fake news. But as the information war that has raged for the last 10 to 20 years has shown, this is completely false.

For more thoughts on this topic and strategies for tackling this growing issue in our society, I recommend a book called "How to Talk to a Science Denier." I'm still working my way through it, and it's been challenging because I keep having to stop to write my thoughts and ponder, but it's definitely a book worth reading more than once.

Subscribed

Solutions: What Can We Do?

So what can we do to fight the war on misinformation? How can we make people trust in science again? How can we depolarize science? Here are some potential ideas I have:

Improving School Systems

While I'm not an expert in education, I did experience primary school firsthand. he following ideas might be worth exploring.

• Promote critical thinking as a prerequisite leading into science education at foundational levels

• Teachers and pedagogic researchers need to have this problem in mind when reforming the education system

• Possibly implement active learning methods, hands-on approaches, and encourage skepticism as a way to start conversations

• Make science more tactile with newer books (outdated materials are boring for kids), interactive materials applicable to all learning style archetypes

• Improve focus on critical evaluation of literature and information - how can students identify fake news? With a generation growing up with AI, how can we protect them? We must teach critical skills for recognizing and selecting legitimate sources and understanding why and how information is presented to them

Addressing Online Polarization

Polarization increases as people spend more time online. Most online spaces today control what each user sees on their personalized feeds using algorithms (often to improve user retention and thereby ad revenue)

When you only see one type of people and opinions, you become radicalized. The social diversity we once experienced in physical communities is diminishing, and algorithmic isolation can push people toward more extreme positions

• Lawmakers should consider regulating the use of such algorithms. If there were a drug for mind control, it would be banned. When it's technology, there seems to be little regulatory action

The lack of critical thinking about content people see is also why they often believe it after repeated exposure.

• Consider: who benefits from telling you to eat a strictly carnivore diet? You, because you've "awakened from the matrix"? Or perhaps the guru selling you an $89 meal plan is, because there's no way you can eat meat recipes for extended periods without getting bored of them. The one who’s not benefiting is your colon. That’s for sure.Action Steps for us all

Whoever you are, I hope you can take something away from this article. If after reading it you feel as concerned as I do about the state of scientific literacy, I encourage you to do the following.

Scientists:

• Read the book "How to Talk to a Science Denier" and take notes

• Write down frameworks and do your duty as both a scientist and a good human being by engaging with the public

• Work together on activism addressing the (potentially classist) journal publishing system

• Explore nonprofit ways to publish AND peer review

• Find better ways to disseminate findings to the general public in language that is both technically and linguistically accessible

Educators:

• Implement and advocate for critical thinking training at earlier educational levels

• If you feel overwhelmed, bring in experts

• Remember you're not just teaching kids - you're giving tools to the next generation of humans, the ones who will be lawmakers and agents in the AI age

• These people will need to know how to critically assess information before making decisions about serious matters

• The future of democracy, and maybe the human race, is partly in your hands

Everyday Citizens:

• Question everything - yes, that's right

• You may already be questioning, but question deeper

• Ask yourself: Why does this p

  erson want me to distrust established institutions? Why am I inclined to believe certain claims despite contrary evidence? Why do I prefer one piece of evidence over ten pieces of counterargument?

• Consider whether you're being manipulated

• Examine the reasons why you believe what you believe

• Ask who benefits from the rhetoric being presented to you