Analysis of ‘Flat-Earther’ Posts on Social Media: Reflections for Science Education from the Discursive Perspective of Foucault
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.28976/1984-2686rbpec2020u295313Palavras-chave:
social media, flat Earth, discourse analysisResumo
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.
Referências
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. Retrieved from 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. Retrieved from 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. Retrieved from 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. Retrieved from 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. Retrieved from 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. Retrieved from 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. Retrieved from 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. Retrieved from 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. Retrieved from 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. Retrieved from 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. Retrieved from 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. Retrieved from 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. Retrieved from 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. Retrieved from 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. Retrieved from 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. Retrieved from 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. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550611434786
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. Retrieved from 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. Retrieved from 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. Retrieved from 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. Retrieved from 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. Retrieved from 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. Retrieved from 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. Retrieved from 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. Retrieved from 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. Retrieved from 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. Retrieved from 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. Retrieved from 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. Retrieved from 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. Retrieved from 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. Retrieved from 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. Retrieved from 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. Retrieved from 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. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550611434786
Downloads
Publicado
2020-08-10
Edição
Seção
Artigos
Licença
Os autores são responsáveis pela veracidade das informações prestadas e pelo conteúdo dos artigos.
Os autores que publicam neste periódico concordam plenamente com os seguintes termos:
- Os autores atestam que a contribuição é inédita, isto é, não foi publicada em outro periódico, atas de eventos ou equivalente.
- Os autores atestam que não submeteram a contribuição simultaneamente a outro periódico.
- Os autores mantêm os direitos autorais e concedem à RPBEC o direito de primeira publicação, com o trabalho simultaneamente licenciado sob a Licença Creative Commons Attribution que permite o compartilhamento do trabalho com reconhecimento da autoria e publicação inicial neste periódico.
- Os autores atestam que possuem os direitos autorais ou a autorização escrita de uso por parte dos detentores dos direitos autorais de figuras, tabelas, textos amplos etc. que forem incluídos no trabalho.
- Os autores têm autorização para assumir contratos adicionais separadamente, para distribuição não-exclusiva da versão do trabalho publicada nesta revista (por exemplo, publicar em repositório institucional ou como capítulo de livro), com reconhecimento de autoria e publicação inicial nesta revista.
- Os autores têm permissão e são estimulados a publicar e distribuir seu trabalho online (por exemplo, em repositórios institucionais ou na sua página pessoal) após a publicação visando aumentar o impacto e a citação do trabalho publicado.
Em caso de identificação de plágio, republicação indevida e submissão simultânea, os autores autorizam a Editoria a tornar público o evento, informando a ocorrência aos editores dos periódicos envolvidos, aos eventuais autores plagiados e às suas instituições de origem.
Como Citar
Analysis of ‘Flat-Earther’ Posts on Social Media: Reflections for Science Education from the Discursive Perspective of Foucault. (2020). Revista Brasileira De Pesquisa Em Educação Em Ciências, 20(u), 295-313. https://doi.org/10.28976/1984-2686rbpec2020u295313
