Have you ever asked yourself “Are condition, syndrome, disease, illness, and disorder words used to describe different things, or are they all synonyms?”.
Well, we were curious, and here is what we found ☝️
Share our original Tweet!
Have you ever asked yourself “Is a condition, a syndrome, a disease, an illness, and a disorder words used to describe different things or are they all synonyms?”.
Raise your hand if you are in need of some good news. ️
A recent study that spanned 16 countries and 6 continents investigated how effective different interventions were in fighting the spread of misinformation (1). The study found that:
Prompting people to consider accuracy reduced their likelihood of sharing misinformation on social media platforms.
Additionally, the study found that simple tips on how to spot misinformation can curb its spread (2).
This study is part of a growing body of evidence that points to the impact of misinformation interventions (3,4,5).
How can you help? The next time you come across a headline that is emotionally charged, lacks nuance, or sounds too good to be true, ask yourself, “Is this accurate?”. Does something still seem fishy? Consider the following:
Investigate the source. ️ Is the story written by a source whose reputation you trust? If the story comes from an unfamiliar organization, check their “About Us” section to learn more.
Inspect the dates. False news stories may link to out-of-date references or timelines that don’t make sense.
Look at other sources. Are other stories independently verifying the same report or are they all linking back to a singular article?
Is it a joke? The best of us have fallen for a well-placed April Fools’ joke. Double check what you are reading isn’t a parody.
Still have doubts? If you’re not 100% sure it’s legit, don’t share it. ♀️
If you’re here thank you for being part of this initiative – we are stronger when we are together against misinformation.
Share our original Tweet!
Good news! Interventions to fight misinformation work!
Something as simple as prompting people to consider accuracy and providing tips to spot misinformation helps curb its spread.#ScienceUpFirst
Misinformation is omnipresent online and some people are making a very profitable business out of it.
Misinformers will use the social media platform as a way to redirect you to their webpage where they offer diverse products or subscriptions.
Misinformation is not a one person job, quite the opposite. Misinformers collaborate together and promote each other’s work, all to extend their reach and make more money.
Misinformation is a well organized web and falling for it means nothing about your intelligence. It takes a lot of time, energy and expertise to see the truth through that intricate network. All things we don’t always have a lot of. That’s why it is so important that you stop and think “Is this true?” before you share anything online.
Check out the Center for Countering Digital Hate at CounterHate.com or on Instagram at @counterhate to learn more about the disinformation dozen.
We were shocked looking at these numbers! What about you, did you know misinformers were making that much money from sharing misinformation? Let us know in the comments
Share our original Tweet!
Would you be surprised if we told you some individuals are making a lot of money from misinformation (Including presidential candidates )?
A journal article retraction is when an article is removed after it has been published (1,2,3). The article might be retracted for multiple reasons, such as an honest error, research misconduct (i.e. falsification or fabrication), plagiarism, etc. (1,4).
Retractions are important to preserve scientific transparency and integrity and to ensure scientific rigour (4,5,6). ScienceUpFirst might not be an academic journal, but we strongly believe in these values.
Thanks to feedback from our audience we learned that information presented in our Placebo post might not reflect the best current literature, lacked nuances, and could be misinterpreted. For all these reasons, we have decided to remove our post on the Placebo effect.
Honest errors are the main reason papers get retracted (4). This post, like all our posts, has gone through all the same steps: research, writing, review, and expert vetting (7). But that doesn’t mean we are perfect.
Thanks to those who gave us notes so we can continue to put #ScienceUpFirst!
Worried a friend is caught in a web of conspiracy theories?
First up, that’s really tough and we are sorry
The good news is, people change their minds everyday. We break down the appeal of conspiracy theories and how to offer the people you care about a way out.
Share our original Tweet!
People don’t just wake up one morning convinced “globalists run the Internet.” ️
To get to that point, they need to travel down the rabbit hole. ️
So what drives people toward conspiracy theories and extremism?#ScienceUpFirst
Misinformers use a variety of tactics to deceive and distort reality.
They will cherry-pick the data or the scientific evidence that fits with their agenda, but critics ignore all other facts. They will attack the science or the expert instead of the arguments.
There are many tactics used to disseminate misinformation. Most of these tactics are used to make you believe false information or to shift your focus towards something irrelevant to the real issue.
We deep dive into 3 misleading claims misinformers have made lately and share what they “forgot” to tell you while doing so.
When looking at science, it is important take in the full picture. Share this with your friends and family to make sure they get the full story.
Share our original Tweet!
Misinformers use a variety of tactics to deceive and distort reality.
Check out this deep dive into 3 misleading claims misinformers made lately https://t.co/oas2iW2baN
The Canadian bill for misinformation during the pandemic is out and it’s steep.
Last month, the Council of Canadian Academies (CCA)* released their report on the socioeconomic impacts in Canada of science and health misinformation (1,2,3).
Here is a summary of their findings
Over 2.35 million of people living in Canada could have been vaccinated if they did not believe the COVID-19 pandemic was a hoax or less serious than it was because of misinformation. If that many more people would have been vaccinated as of the end of November 2021, we could have avoided (1,2):
198,000 COVID cases
13,000 hospitalizations
3,500 visits to the ICU
2,800 deaths
These extra hospitalizations and ICU visits are estimated to have cost us nothing less than $299 million. Vaccine misinformation has put a huge strain on our healthcare system, contributed to new variants and has slowed our economic recovery (1,4). This might seem like a lot, but the real numbers are expected to be much higher as this report only looked at the misinformation impact from March to November 2021 (1,3).
Now more than ever, we need to learn how to recognize misinformation. By learning misinformer tactics you create cognitive antibodies and resistance against future misinformation exposure. You can learn more about misinformer tactics on our website (5).
When you see misinformation online, take a screenshot of it and then share it with your circle. Never share misinformation directly as it can increase its reach in the algorithm. Sharing verified information from trusted and credible sources also helps!
*The CCA is a not-for-profit organization that provides independent, science-based reports for the public. This report was conducted and written by a panel of 13 independent experts from all over Canada and was peer-reviewed before being published (1,6).
Share our original Tweet!
Last month, the CCA (@cca_reports) released their report on the socioeconomic impacts in Canada of science and health misinformation.
Conclusion: the Canadian bill for misinformation during the pandemic is steep.#ScienceUpFirst
We know we have been using gas stoves for years, but it does not mean they are safe – it’s time to change our ways!
Gas stoves have been proven to emit pollutants in your home even when you are not cooking (1). Some of these chemicals are known lung irritants, cancer-causing agents, and very powerful greenhouse gasses (1,4,11).
The best way to avoid these detrimental effects on your health and the planet is to replace your gas stove with an electric stove (1). But we know that is not always a possibility, so keep reading to learn other ways you can reduce their impacts.
If you have a gas stove at home, it is very important that you also have a carbon monoxide (CO) detector to avoid any risk of CO poisoning (12).
Pollution exposure from your gas stove might not be as important as many other pollution sources you might be exposed to on a daily basis, but it is one that can definitely be avoided (5).
Share our original Tweet!
Gas stoves have been proven to emit pollutants in your home even when you are not cooking.
Some of these chemicals are known cancer causing-agents, lung irritants, and very powerful greenhouse gasses.#ScienceUpFirst
Picture this… Your uncle emails you a health claim as proof that the latest conspiracy theory is true. It’s full of jargon and outside your expertise – but something about it seems fishy!
It’s not always easy to check if a claim is true, especially if it relates to a scientific or technical field in which you have no background. Fortunately, you don’t need to be an expert yourself to spot misinformation
When face-to-face with a suspicious claim there are a few questions to ask yourself:
Does the person making the claim have the relevant expertise?
Does the claim come from a reputable source or peer-reviewed journal?
Does the claim correspond to what its source suggests? You’d be surprised how often that’s not the case.
Does the author use manipulation techniques like emotional language, black-and-white thinking, blaming a single individual or group for a complicated problem, and attacking a person rather than an argument?
Don’t have time to ask all these questions? Simply asking ourselves “is this accurate” makes us less vulnerable to misinformation and less likely to pass it on (1).
Believing misinformation is NOT a reflection of someone’s moral character or intelligence. Misinformers have a slew of tactics they use that could catch anyone off guard.
Most of the time, people do not want to share inaccurate information. In one study 80% of respondents felt it was very important to only share accurate content online (1) Research finds that folks are more likely to fall for fake news when we rely on our emotions (2).
It turns out that people of ALL ages around the world are vulnerable to misinformation. While adults 65+ are more likely to share fake news stories on Facebook (3), conspiracy theories are being spread by teens on TikTok (4). A recent survey of over 20,000 Americans found that the younger you are, the more likely you are to believe in false claims about COVID-19 (5).
The good news is there are things you can do that make you less vulnerable:
Always read past the headline
Check the source. Is it reputable? ️
Learn the tactics of misinformers. If you know the tricks you are less likely to fall for them. We break down a bunch of these on our website.
Believing misinformation is NOT a reflection of someone’s moral character or intelligence. Misinformers have a slew of tactics they use that could catch anyone off guard.#ScienceUpFirst
Do you know about DeepFakes? They’re trickier than defending your home from the wet bandits!
DeepFakes are manipulated videos, or other digital representations, made by artificial intelligence. The goal is to make fake images and sounds that appear to be real. Misinformers can use this technology to create media that helps support their agenda.
They can be funny and entertaining, but as the technology improves people need to become more thoughtful about what they’re seeing on the screen.
DeepFakes are getting better all the time but focusing on the weaknesses of the software makes it easier to spot when something isn’t real.
Watch our video for tips on how to spot them for yourself.
View our original Tweet!
DeepFakes are trickier than defending your home from the wet bandits.
They’re getting better all the time but focusing on the weaknesses of the software makes it easier to spot when something isn’t real.
Watch our video for tips on how to spot them. #ScienceUpFirst
In science, just like with everything, it’s important to look at the full picture.
If some information is missing or taken out of context, you might not reach the correct conclusion. By only showing or omitting certain information or data, misinformers push you toward conclusions that fit their narrative.
With the COP27 happening right now, we thought it would be appropriate to show you how disinformers have been using this tactic to deny climate change
Disinformers will include only a narrow range of data, neglecting the fact that climate data needs to be interpreted in a minimum cycle of 30 years. The next trick they use is to start the graph with an exceptionally warm year (without telling you so, of course!) and end with a colder one. This would result in a graph showing, what it looks like, a decrease in global surface temperature.
Global mean surface air temperature data are just like pixels in a picture: the more pixels you have the better the picture is. Similarly, the more data are included the clearer the trend will be. LOWESS (locally weighted scatter plot smooth) regression line is used to show a trend more clearly with data that have a lot of noise or natural variation like climate data (12,13). This regression line (grey line) is only shown in the last two graphics, given the need for sufficient sample size to estimate local regression (14). In this example, the trend shows a clear global surface air temperature increase since 1880.
A big thank you to Dr. Sarah Treit at @figures.first for collaborating with us on this post! Stay tuned as we unravel together more ways data can be misrepresented!
Remember, when looking at data, make sure that you have the full picture.
*Temperature anomaly refers to the difference in temperature from that year relative to the average temperature from 1951 to 1980, as defined by NASA(15,16).
Share our original Tweet!
In science, just like with everything, it’s important to look at the full picture.
What would you conclude about Climate Change based on this graphic only?#ScienceUpFirst
