Advertisement

Conclusions

  • Andrea Grignolio
Chapter

Abstract

In the United States, according to a study by the University of Stanford, 82% of North American high school students are incapable of correctly evaluating the credibility of the information found on the Internet, i.e. they are unable to distinguish the authenticity of an image or understand whether a text is sponsored and base their trust not on the origin and authority of the sources but on how much the news is shared and on the “likes” it receives. This is a result which the authors themselves define “dismaying”, “bleak” and “[a] threat to democracy” (Stanford 2016). In Europe, a recent French survey reports that 51% of French citizens are interested in conspiracy topics, and 36% of young people between the ages of 15 and 24 believe that there really exists an occult society which governs the world, a figure which pushed the government, represented by the former French Minister of Education Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, to inaugurate in 2016 a campaign for schools entitled “You’re being manipulated!” (On te manipule!), conceived to raise the awareness of pupils and teachers in schools, with ad hoc educational material (media literacy). Western society and the most advanced democracies have to face a great challenge over the next three decades, which is to find a way to handle the information overload, learning to manage the perception of risk and manipulated news.

Bibliography

  1. Abhyankar, P., D.B. O’Connor and R. Lawton (2008), The Role of Message Framing in Promoting MMR Vaccination: Evidence of A Loss-Frame Advantage, “Psychol Health Med”, 13 (1), pp. 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ball, L.K., G. Evans. and A. Bostrom (1998), Risky Business: Challenges in Vaccine Risk Communication, “Pediatrics”, 101 (3 Pt 1), pp. 453–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beccaria, G. e A. Grignolio (2014), Scienza & Democrazia. Come la ricerca demolisce i nostri pregiudizi e può migliorarci la vita, Edizione La Stampa/40K, Torino.Google Scholar
  4. Cillizza, C. (2016), Donald Trump's post-truth campaign and what it says about the dismal state of US politics, “The Independent”, May 10th 2016, June 19th 2017 (https://goo.gl/znPsmw)
  5. Corbellini, G. (2011), Scienza quindi democrazia, Einaudi, Torino.Google Scholar
  6. Corbellini, G. (2013), Scienza, Bollati Boringhieri, Torino.Google Scholar
  7. Debord, G. (1967), Commentari sulla società dello spettacolo e La società dello spettacolo. Milano, Sugarco, 1990 (original edition: La Société du spectacle, Paris, éditions Buchet/Chastel).Google Scholar
  8. Drezner, D.W. (2016), Why the post-truth political era might be around for a while, “The Washington Post”, June 16th 2016, June 19th 2017 (https://goo.gl/4sdej2)
  9. Flynn, J.R. (2013), Osa pensare: venti concetti per capire criticamente e apprezzare la modernità. Mondadori università, Milano (original edition How to Improve Your Mind Twenty Keys to Unlock the Modern World, 2012).Google Scholar
  10. Freedland, J. (2016), Post-truth politicians such as Donald Trump and Boris Johnson are no joke, “The Guardian”, May 13th 2016, June 19th 2017 (https://goo.gl/CWtgjS)
  11. Gigerenzer, G. (1996), On Narrow Norms and Vague Heuristics: A Reply to Kahneman and Tversky, “Psychological Review”, 103(3), pp. 592–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gigerenzer, G. (2009), Decisioni intuitive: quando si sceglie senza pensarci troppo, Cortina, Milano (original edition, Gut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious, 2007).Google Scholar
  13. Gigerenzer, G. (2015), Imparare a rischiare: come prendere decisioni giuste, Cortina, Milano (original edition: Risk Savvy: How to Make Good Decisions, 2014).Google Scholar
  14. Gigerenzer, G. e J.A.M. Gray (2013), Better Doctors, Better Patients, Better Decisions: Envisioning Health Care 2020, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  15. Ginzburg, C. (2000), Rapporti di forza. Storia, retorica, prova. Feltrinelli, Milano (Engl. transl.: History, Rhetoric, and Proof (The Menahem Stern Jerusalem Lectures). Brandeis University Press/Historical Society of Israel, 1999).Google Scholar
  16. Ginzburg, C. (2006), Il filo e le tracce. Vero, falso, finto. Feltrinelli, Milano (Engl. transl.: Threads and Traces: True False Fictive. University of California Press, 2012).Google Scholar
  17. Grignolio A. (2017), Post-verità, vaccini, democrazia, “Future of Science and Ethics”, 2, pp. 75–88.Google Scholar
  18. Hendrix, K.S. et al. (2014), Vaccine Message Framing and Parents’ Intent to Immunize Their Infants for MMR, “Pediatrics”, 134 (3), e675–683.Google Scholar
  19. Horne, Z. et al. (2015), Countering Antivaccination Attitudes, “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences”, 112 (33), pp. 10.321–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kahneman, D. (2012). Pensieri lenti e veloci, Mondadori, Milano (original edition, Thinking, Fast And Slow, 2011).Google Scholar
  21. Kahneman, D. and A. Tversky (1996), On the Reality of Cognitive Illusions, “Psychology Review”, 103(3), pp. 582–91, discussion on p. 592–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kuntz, M. (2017). Science and Postmodernism: From Right-Thinking to Soft-Despotism. "Trends in Biotechnology" 35(4): 283–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Majcen, S. (2016), Evidence Based Policy Making in The European Union: The Role of the Scientific Community, “Environmental Science and Pollution Research”.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nyhan, B. et al. (2014), Effective Messages in Vaccine Promotion: A Randomized Trial, “Pediatrics”, 133 (4), pp. e835–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rosenstock, L., & Lee, L. J. (2002). Attacks on Science: The Risks to Evidence-Based Policy. American Journal of Public Health, 92(1), 14–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Thaler, R.H. e C.R. Sunstein (2008), Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness.Google Scholar
  27. Tversky A, Kahneman D., Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science. 1974 Sep 27;185(4157):1124–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Williamson, P. (2016), Take the time and effort to correct misinformation, “Nature”, 540(7632), Dec.,171–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Young, K. et al. (2002), Social Science and The Evidence-Based Policy Movement, “Social Policy & Society”, Vol.1, N. 3, pp. 215–24.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea Grignolio
    • 1
  1. 1.Unit and Museum of History of Medicine, Department of Experimental MedicineSapienza University of RomeRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations