Who believes in science? A computational tool for identifying language invoking or disputing scientific knowledge

Area of Science:

• Science and Technology Studies
• Computational Social Science
• Political Science

Background:

• Scientific knowledge faces increasing political contestation, exemplified by debates over COVID-19 and climate science.
• The value and legitimacy of mainstream science are central to high-stakes political struggles.
• Understanding the dynamics of scientific discourse in the political arena is crucial.

Purpose of the Study:

• To introduce and validate a novel computational tool for identifying and tracking discourses related to scientific authority.
• To analyze the emergence, proliferation, and historical variations of pro-science and anti-science rhetoric.
• To investigate how elite rhetoric influences political polarization surrounding science in the United States.

Main Methods:

• Development of a computational tool for discourse analysis.
• Validation of the tool's predictive and convergent validity.
• Application of the tool in three case studies focusing on US political rhetoric and science.

Main Results:

• Political statements invoking scientific expertise historically received more mainstream media coverage.
• This advantage in media coverage diminishes over time.
• Elite rhetoric appears to be a significant driver of political polarization around science.

Conclusions:

• The computational tool provides a novel method for analyzing scientific discourse and its political implications.
• The findings suggest a potential decline in the enduring discursive authority associated with scientific expertise.
• Further research can explore the long-term impact of political polarization on public trust in science.