Are we well immunized as a society against pseudoscientific hoaxes?
A couple of months ago we carried out a survey where we included a measure of acceptance of pseudoscientific beliefs developed by the researcher and specialist in pseudoscience Ángelo Fasce. starting panel online from IMOP Insights (pending publication), we asked the adult population in Spain for their degree of agreement or disagreement with a list of statements related to hoaxes or pseudoscientific nonsense.
Claims could range from science having validated the existence of telepathic abilities or negative emotions “proven” to cause cancer, to archaeologists recording the encounter between ancient civilizations and alien beings.
In aggregate, a higher mean score on these beliefs usually means a more willingness to accept hoaxes and pseudoscientific beliefs.
Mostly the population accepts the possibility of pseudoscientific ideas
The survey data suggest that today the typical response in Spain to pseudoscientific hoaxes is agnosticism: they are neither embraced nor rejected head-on, but instead acknowledge ignorance. Is the glass half full then?
There is reason to think twice that it really is so. Not only does a majority portion of the Spanish adult population prove that they are open to contemplating pseudoscientific ideas as plausible, but also, in some cases, a very high percentage of citizens directly embrace such beliefs, as can be seen in detail in this graph:
Author provided
Having university studies does not mean believing less in pseudoscience
How can it be that 30% of adults in Spain agree that telepathy has been scientifically proven? Or that almost a quarter of those surveyed affirm that there is proven evidence of prehistoric contacts with alien civilizations?
In our survey we included the usual demographic variables (age, gender, educational level). We are relieved to see that educational level slightly predicts less susceptibility to pseudoscientific ideas. But, although statistically significant, the correlation between having completed college and embracing pseudoscientific ideas was small. Reason for congratulations or rather for dismay? After all, a higher education of several years does not seem to highly immunize against intellectual impostures.
In contrast, age (being of an older generation) was roughly as predictive as educational level: at the same educational level, an older generation seems more likely to accept these beliefs.
How can it be that university education, to which our society and our young people dedicate so much effort, is not a highly protective factor against pseudoscientific nonsense?
How much do we know about science?
In our study we also included a measure of citizen understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge. That is, we measure how familiar adults residing in Spain are with the philosophy of scientific knowledge and the nature of science as an activity, including measures on whether people understand that a result can be scientific even if it is not absolutely conclusive, or if, for For example, people understand what peer review is.
High measures of familiarity with the philosophy of scientific knowledge were a clear predictor of the rejection of pseudoscientific hoaxes. In fact, in our model, university education was only protective against pseudoscientific hoaxes when it had served to convey a modicum of understanding in the philosophy of science.
Otherwise, college-educated people are no less and no more reluctant than others to embrace pseudoscientific ideas.
This suggests that in Spain university education is not serving to transmit a minimum philosophical understanding of the nature of science in many cases.
Risk factor’s
In our survey, being a woman also appeared as a risk factor for accepting pseudoscientific beliefs. This is so even controlling for other variables. That is, at the same educational level or the same level of familiarity with the philosophy of science, on average women showed a somewhat greater susceptibility. We don’t know why this is so, and the proverbial “further study should look into this question” applies here. However, since this result has been replicated in other surveys and may be key to addressing situations of social vulnerability, we believe that it is worth paying attention to the gender dimension in this matter.
As usual, these average differences are modest. In no case does it mean that one sex is more credulous than the other (in other surveys, men tend to appear more willing to embrace conspiracy theories, however absurd they may be).
One possibility highlighted above is that the greater empathy shown on average by women makes them more susceptible. Another, more disturbing possibility is that many of these beliefs have been manufactured or (like a strain of a virus that adapts to its host) have co-evolved to more easily recruit adherents among women.
Other surveys show, for example, that in our society receptivity to alternative therapies (a particularly pernicious form of pseudoscience in some cases) is more widespread among women.
The path to a less gullible society
For some years now, in our country we have had an enviable surveillance and detection system for the flu epidemic in some respects. Likewise, covid-19 has highlighted the need to have early detection systems for pathogens to prevent possible explosive outbreaks and to be able to act in time to contain their spread. The experience and the results of some studies would advise us to take seriously the need to detect, monitor and model the spread of pseudoscientific hoaxes among the population.
Understanding what causes certain pernicious ideas to spread and what makes some groups more vulnerable would strengthen our immunity to pseudoscience and its more pernicious consequences.
A less gullible society is a society that is less susceptible to misinformation and harmful practices, and is more likely to make informed decisions about its health, the environment, and other important issues.