| Summary: | Scholarship on (mis)information does not easily translate into recommendations for policy-makers and policy influencers who wish to judge the accuracy of science-related truth claims. This is partly due to much of this literature being based on lab experiments with captive audiences that tell us little about the durability or scalability of any potential intervention in the real world. More importantly, the “accuracy” of scientific truth claims is much more difficult to define than many scholars in this space acknowledge. Uncertainties associated with the nature of science, sociopolitical climates, and media systems introduce compounding error in assessments of claim accuracy. We, therefore, need a more nuanced understanding of misinformation and disinformation than those often present in discussions of the “infodemic.” Here, we propose a new framework for evaluating science-related truth claims and apply it to real-world examples. We conclude by discussing implications for research and action on (mis)information, given that distinguishing between true and false claims is not as easy as it is sometimes purported to be. © 2022 by The American Academy of Political and Social Science.
|
|---|
