In today’s world, we are flooded with information, especially through social media. Such information is often poorly checked, and it can sometimes be difficult to distinguish the “real” from the “false,” that is, accurate information from misinformation (see Thagard 2024). The circulation of misinformation in public discourse is not without consequences; it frequently has a negative impact on individual decision-making, community health, and trust in institutions. In particular, it fosters the development of conspiracy theories, which can be non-harmful (e.g., belief in the existence of UFOs or a flat Earth) but also socially harmful, leading to forced migrations or even fatalities (e.g., in the context of climate change denial or distrust in modern vaccines).
Given the overload of information to which we are exposed, the public increasingly doubts its credibility and therefore becomes suspicious and disappointed in science, which has traditionally been considered as the authority of human knowledge. While science continuously provides new insights about climate change, health, or technology, an increasing number of people doubt its conclusions. For example, despite the expert consensus that climate change is real and that anthropogenic factors influence it, there are significant resistances, especially from various oil and political lobbies (see Myers et al. 2021). In medicine, despite strong evidence of the safety of the MMR vaccine against measles, mumps, and rubella—and the scientific consensus that it does not cause childhood autism—parents are still hesitant to vaccinate their children. This hesitancy is often fueled by misinformation stemming from the debunked paper by Wakefield et al. (1998). Such cases highlight the crucial role of effective science communication in countering skepticism and science denialism, as public trust in science depends not only on the robustness of evidence but also on how it is communicated (McIntyre 2021; Intemann, 2024; Potochnik 2024). For instance, during the COVID-19 pandemic, declines in public trust were linked to how scientific disagreements over health policies were presented, while in the tobacco case, communication strategies deliberately sought to cast doubt on well-established evidence linking smoking to cancer, thereby undermining public confidence in science. Scientific communication is therefore not a secondary activity, but a fundamental tool for building trust in science, especially in times of crisis in science. We believe that philosophers, along with scientists, politicians, the media, and other relevant actors, can make a significant contribution in science communication gap with the aim of restoring public trust in science.
Despite persistent skepticism about the extent to which philosophers can meaningfully contribute to resolving socially relevant issues (see van der Vossen 2015; Callard 2019), contemporary efforts to open academic philosophy toward the public suggest that a stronger role for philosophers in this process is both desirable and timely (see McIntyre, McHugh, and Olasov 2022). Philosophy, we believe, possesses distinctive skills and intellectual resources that can make a meaningful contribution to science communication. In particular, philosophers of science, drawing on their expertise in conceptual analysis, logical reasoning, familiarity with specific scientific fields, and understanding of scientific methodology, are well positioned to help make science more accessible to the public. They can effectively translate complex scientific ideas into accessible non-specialist language and critically examine and address mistaken interpretations and misinformation that affect public perception of science. By actively engaging in public debates, the media, and educational initiatives, philosophers can serve as valuable mediators between the scientific community and the broader public, thereby contributing to building trust and to a better understanding of scientific achievements. In addition, philosophers are well equipped to recognize and address the fundamental values that shape both science and public opinion. In doing so, they can help create a more comprehensible and inclusive dialogue between scientists and the public, especially from the following two perspectives: 1.) by simplifying complex scientific vocabulary and correcting fallacious reasoning, and 2.) by considering the background beliefs, identities, interests, and values that shape the way science is communicated and understood.
The Contribution of Philosophy from Two Perspectives
First, philosophers, especially philosophers of science, can make a concrete contribution to science communication by utilizing their skills in clarifying scientific content and correcting fallacies that arise in exchanges between science and the public. Thanks to their often dual training in a specific science (e.g., physics or biology) and philosophy, philosophers of science can act as mediators. Apart from possessing general philosophical skills, including identification and correction of logical fallacies, and classification and articulation of complex bodies of knowledge and ideas, philosophers are adept at translating scientific vocabulary and simplifying complex theories into concepts accessible to non-specialists (see Brister 2022). This skill is particularly important in the context of the crisis of trust in science, since the spread of misinformation and conspiracy theories often exploits the public’s difficulty in understanding complex scientific concepts and methodologies. By demystifying scientific claims, exposing fallacies in pseudoscientific arguments, and rendering nuanced terminology into accessible language, philosophers of science not only promote clearer understanding but also strengthen the public’s resilience against manipulation and unfounded skepticism, which is an important step toward rebuilding trust in science.
One way philosophers can help make complex scientific concepts more accessible to the public is by clarifying the distinction between correlation and causation, a distinction often misunderstood in cases of science denial. Correlation does not imply causation. For example, although ice cream sales and drowning incidents both rise during the summer, this does not mean that one causes the other. Rather, a third factor, namely hot weather, drives both increased ice cream consumption and swimming activity, thereby raising the likelihood of drownings. Philosophers are particularly well equipped to highlight this classic error, drawing on their expertise in analyzing the nature of causation, an understanding developed through centuries of philosophical debate on the topic.
Second, it is often emphasized that effective science communication does not involve only the transmission of correct scientific content, the correction of fallacious reasoning, or the general scientific education of non-specialists, but also takes into account the much broader context in which the transmission and interpretation of scientific content take place (see Potochnik 2024). Numerous studies show that background beliefs, identities, interests, and values significantly shape the way in which scientific claims are interpreted (see McIntyre 2021). For example, alignment with liberal (or conservative) political values can influence attitudes toward climate change or vaccination, as well as toward trust in scientific consensus (see Bardon 2020). In addition, trust in scientific content is often affected by personal interests, group membership, emotional states, and psychological processes in which scientific claims are rejected if they appear to threaten social, political, or personal identity. Thus, science communication must consider not only what is communicated to the public, but also how such claims are communicated. In this context, the depoliticization of science is particularly emphasized, which includes highlighting the common interests it serves, stressing its broader social relevance, and fostering a wider atmosphere of trust and mutual respect (see Potochnik 2024).
It seems that philosophy can play an important role in these processes. Beyond the philosophy of science—which, being closely connected with scientific practice, can help the public better understand both the broader social significance of science and the way it operates, including why disagreements arise and why science is not infallible—philosophers more generally are well positioned to engage in discussions about morality, beliefs, and values. In this sense, philosophy is well positioned to enrich science communication by clarifying underlying values and identities, thereby supporting a neutral and depoliticized presentation of scientific claims, including the fair representation of diverse interests in public debate, which can help strengthen trust between the public and science (see Koskinen 2022). In addition, given their expertise in argumentation and debate, philosophers are particularly well positioned to engage with diverse perspectives on science, including strong denial of scientific facts, from a neutral and reflective standpoint, avoiding immediate condemnation or dismissal of skeptical views. By emphasizing careful evaluation of arguments and applying the principle of charity, which involves interpreting and considering different positions fairly, philosophers can foster open, constructive discussion and thereby contribute to strengthening public trust in science (see Brister 2022). By engaging with the public’s concerns rather than dismissing them, this approach can promote a more constructive relationship between science and the public.
Instead of a Conclusion
While trust in science encompasses far more than public communication—including the evaluation of scientific and research practices, the inclusion and representation of diverse social groups (particularly underrepresented ones) in science (see Potochnik 2024), the credibility of scientists, and the consideration of values influencing scientific processes—science communication remains a particularly fertile area for philosophical engagement (see Intemann 2024). Although this is a complex issue involving the coordinated efforts of multiple actors, from the media to educational institutions, philosophy can play a significant role in effective science communication, opening new avenues for discussion, action, and research within the discipline. Movements such as public philosophy and initiatives like engaged philosophy, the Public Philosophy Network, the Society for Philosophy of Science in Practice, and the Philosophy of Science Communication Network demonstrate how academic philosophy is increasingly engaging in interdisciplinary collaboration and public outreach, continuing a tradition that stretches from Socrates, through the Vienna Circle, to the present day. This engagement also raises important questions about the responsibilities philosophers may have in addressing socially relevant issues and contributing to the public good. With these developments, there is a growing reason to be optimistic that philosophy can help bridge the gap between science and the public, fostering a more informed, reflective, and trusting relationship.
This entry was originally published in Croatian in “Kronika: Filozofski magazin”. The original text is available at this link.
This work is an output of the research project “Metaphilosophy,” funded by the Croatian Science Foundation (grant number HRZZ-IP-2022-10-2550), and the research project “Ethics and Social Challenges (EDI)” at the Institute of Philosophy, Zagreb, supervised by the Ministry of Science and Education of the Republic of Croatia and funded through the National Recovery and Resilience Plan 2021–2026 (a part of NextGenerationEU).
Vito Balorda
Vito Balorda is a postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Philosophy at the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Rijeka. His research focuses on the philosophy of science, metaphysics, and metaphilosophy.
Tamara Crnko
Tamara Crnko is a postdoctoral researcher at the Faculty of Health Studies, University of Rijeka. Her work primarily addresses topics in political philosophy, critical thinking, and metaphilosophy.
