Analysis of ‘Flat-Earther’ Posts on Social Media: Reflections for Science Education from the Discursive Perspective of Foucault

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.28976/1984-2686rbpec2020u275294

Keywords:

social media, flat Earth, discourse analysis

Abstract

In this paper we present the results of a research that aimed to analyze posts on a Twitter page of an organization that openly defends that the Earth is flat and to highlight its formative characteristics, as well as to discuss about the possible implications of such defense for Science Education. Discourse analysis was carried out based on the guidelines presented by Foucault and a priori theories were taken from the contributions of Feyerabend, Latour and Stengers. These choices occurred due to the fact that these contributions present heterodox points of view on the production of scientific knowledge, open to implications that are not only epistemological, which makes it possible to discuss the cultural, social and discursive complexity of the ‘flat Earth belief’. It is hoped that the considerations presented here may promote discussions related to the theme on the part of those who work in Science Education and, also, promote reflections on the very ethics of the scientific process and its limits.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Bardin, L. (2011). Análise de conteúdo. Edições 70.

Browne, M., Thomson, P., Rockloff, M. J., & Pennycook, G. (2015). Going against the herd: psychological and cultural factors underlying the ‘vaccination confidence gap’. Plos One, 10(09), 1–14. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132562

Douglas, K. M., Sutton, R. M., Mitchell J. C., Rael, J. D., & Annelie J. H. (2016). Someone is pulling the strings: hypersensitive agency detection and belief in conspiracy theories. Thinking & Reasoning, 22(1), 57–77. Recuperado de http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2015.1051586

Dunker, C., Tezza, C., Fuks, J., Tiburi, M., & Safatle, V. (2017). Ética e pós-verdade. Dublinense.

Feyerabend, P. (1977). Contra o método. Francisco Alves.

Feyerabend, P. (2010). Adeus à razão. Editora Unesp.

Fischer, R. M. B. (2001). Foucault e análise do discurso em educação. Cadernos de Pesquisa, São Paulo, (114), 197–223. Recuperado de http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0100

Foucault, M. (1996). A ordem do discurso (3a. ed.). Edições Loyola.

Foucault, M. (1986). A arqueologia do saber. Forense.

Goertzel, T. (1994). Belief in conspiracy theories. Political psychology, 15(4), 731–742. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.2307/3791630

Harambam, J., & Aupers, S. (2014). Contesting epistemic authority: conspiracy theories on the boundaries of science. Public understanding of science, 24(4), 466–480. Recuperado de https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0963662514559891

Jolley, D., & Douglas, K. M. (2014). The effects of anti-vaccine conspiracy theories on vaccination intentions. Plos one, 9(2), 1–9. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0089177

Lantian, A., Muller, D., Nurra, C., & Douglas, K. M. (2017). I know thing they don’t know: The role of need for uniqueness in belief in conspiracy theories. Social Psychology, 48(03), 160–173. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000306

Latour, B. (2004). Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact of matters of concern. Critical Inquiry, 30(2), 25–248. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1086/421123

Latour, B. (2011). Ciência em ação: como seguir cientistas e engenheiros sociedade afora (2a. ed.). Editora Unesp.

Pelkmans, M., & Machold, R. (2011). Conspiracy theories and their truth trajectories. Focaal – Journal of global and historical anthropology, (59), 66–80.

Prooijen, J. W. V., & Douglas, K. M. (2018). Belief in conspiracy theories: basic principles of an emerging research domain. European journal of social psychology, 48(7), 897–908. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2530

Prooijen, J. W. V. (2015). Sometimes inclusion breeds suspicion: self-uncertainty and belongingness predict belief in conspiracy theories. European journal of social psychology. 46(3), 267–279. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2157

Prooijen, J. W. V. (2017). Why education predicts decreased belief in conspiracy theories. Applied cognitive psychology, 31(1), 50–58. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3301

Prooijen, J. W. V., & Douglas, K. M. (2018). Belief in conspiracy theories: basic principles of an emerging research domain. European journal of social psychology, 48(7), 897–908. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2530

Shifman, I. (2013). Memes in a digital world: reconciling with a conceptual troublemaker. Journal of computer-mediated communication, 18(3), 362–377. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12013

Silva, B. C., Vegetti, F., & Littvay, I. (2017). The elite is up to something: exploring the relation between populism and belief in conspiracy theories. Swiss political science review, 23(4), 423–443. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1111/spsr.12270

Stengers, I. (2015). No tempo das catástrofes: resistir à barbárie que se aproxima. Cosaf Naify.

Swami, V., Voracek, M., Stieger, S., Tran, U. S., & Furnham, A. (2014). Analytic thinking reduces belief in conspiracy theories. Cognition, 133(3), 572–585. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.08.006

Wood, M. J. (2016). Some dare call it conspiracy: labeling something a conspiracy theory does not reduce belief in it. Political psychology, 37(5), 695–705. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12285

Wood, M. J., Douglas, K. M., & Sutton, R. M. (2012). Dead and alive: beliefs in contradictory conspiracy theories. Social psychological and personality science, 6(3), 767–773. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550611434786

Downloads

Published

2020-05-01

How to Cite

português, português , português, & português , P. . (2020). Analysis of ‘Flat-Earther’ Posts on Social Media: Reflections for Science Education from the Discursive Perspective of Foucault. Brazilian Journal of Research in Science Education, 20(u), 275–294. https://doi.org/10.28976/1984-2686rbpec2020u275294

Issue

v. 20 (2020)

Section

Artigos

License

The authors are responsible for the veracity of the information provided and for the content of the papers.

The authors who publish in this journal fully agree with the following terms:

  • The authors attest that the work is unpublished, that is, it has not been published in another journal, event notices or equivalent.
  • The authors attest that they did not submit the paper to another journal simultaneously.
  • The authors retain the copyright and grant to RPBEC the right of first publication, with the work licensed simultaneously under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which allows the sharing of the work with acknowledgment of authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  • The authors attest that they own the copyright or the written permission from copyright owners of figures, tables, large texts, etc. that are included in the paper.
  • Authors are authorized to take additional contracts separately, for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in this journal (for example, to publish in institutional repository or as a book chapter), with acknowledgment of authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  • Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) after the publication in order to increase the impact and citation of published work.

In case of identification of plagiarism, inappropriate republishing and simultaneous submissions, the authors authorize the Editorial Board to make public what happened, informing the editors of the journals involved, any plagiarized authors and their institutions of origin.