iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Iris Zezelj

@iriszez.bsky.social

I teach and research for a living. Social psychologist at the University of Belgrade. Don't expect much, just lurking mainly. reasonforhealth.f.bg.ac.rs/en lira.f.bg.ac.rs/phd-iris-zezelj

Posts Replies Media

Reposted by Iris Zezelj

LIRA Lab @liralab.bsky.social · 27/02/2026

Can we trust science a bit too much? 🤔 While science skepticism gets most of the attention, what about the opposite extreme - uncritical trust in science? Our own @petarlukic.bsky.social and @iriszez.bsky.social just published a new paper in Theory and Society, tackling just this question! 📑

131

Reposted by Iris Zezelj

Mark Rubin @markrubin.bsky.social · 21/01/2026

"There is an asymmetry in the study of trust in science: instead of examining the full spectrum from extreme distrust to extreme trust, it is heavily skewed towards the distrust end." By Petar Lukić and @iriszez.bsky.social doi.org/10.1007/s111...

This paper highlights an ideological neglect in the scientific community’s study of trust in science. While science skepticism (e.g., science denial, anti-scientific conspiracy theories, belief in pseudoscience) has deservedly received vast attention, the opposite extreme - uncritical trust in science (scientism) - is largely overlooked. Scientism idealizes science as all-powerful, capable of establishing absolute truth and solving all problems, while simultaneously exhibiting an unwillingness to accept criticism of its limitations. Despite being notably under-researched, rare findings suggest scientistic beliefs share a similar cognitive footprint with anti-scientific beliefs, being positively related to dogmatism and negatively to cognitive reflection and general cognitive abilities. Outcomes of this uncritical trust include vulnerability to “scientific signaling”, i.e., to meaningless claims using quasi-scientific language or overestimating data value due to irrelevant illustrations or formulae. Furthermore, blind trust can lead to societal polarization, with those who uncritically trust science and scientists being prone to supporting punitive measures against science skeptics. This ideological neglect is potentially driven by scientists’ self-defensive motivations, despite recognizing its contradiction to science’s core principle of organized skepticism. An integral approach to studying trust in science is proposed, with epistemic and political implications. These suggest studying similarities between trust and distrust in science, and urging for critical engagement with science, acknowledging its entanglement with economic and political interests. Practical recommendations include thorough conceptual and empirical exploration of uncritical trust, moving beyond simplistic “trust us” messaging and ensuring scientific authority remains accountable and open to scrutiny.

#PhilSci #SocialPsyc #MetaSci #AcademicSky

24014

Reposted by Iris Zezelj

Hu Chuan-Peng is on paternity leave @hcp4715.bsky.social · 19/06/2025

🎉 After 2 years of work, our #OpenScience guide for researchers in developing countries is LIVE! Check out our new preprint: osf.io/preprints/ps... We map the opportunities 🌟 + barriers 🧱 facing Global South researchers. *(1/4)*

17647