You are scrolling through your Facebook newsfeed and see a collection of articles that all share the tagline, "According to Science." In special cases, we have that one friend on Facebook who innocently shares an article from The Onion, thinking it is a "legitimate finding" because of the ‘according to science’ phrase. Spoof articles or not, many people, including myself, find pieces that possess an air of conviction and reliability, based in the common science tagline. Though I am not discrediting science, I am arguing that more credit should be attributed to those who conduct research finding. The phrase "according to science" in headlines broadens our understanding of what science is, does not provide supplemental credit to scientists in their fields, and stifles skepticism by legitimizing information under the guise of that phrase.

There are many areas of scientific disciplines. These disciplines could range from the natural sciences, like biology, to formal areas of study, which include mathematics. There are even specifications within these subjects in different disciplines (there is a difference between astrophysics and quantum physics). By claiming that something is theorized or proven through just “science,” it fails to recognize how dynamic science is. By allowing persons to understand which areas of science a study was conducted, we become more aware of these specifications, which progresses science literacy.

Most (not all) articles that use this tagline do not properly accredit scientist that have spent tremendous efforts in finding and composing useful information. Not only is inadequately accrediting someone for their findings erroneous, it is difficult to follow a person's conducted studies and valued progressions in their field. The opposite of this, then, are the talented researchers who are given credit for their findings, but are categorized similarly to all articles that hold the phrase "according to science." Unfortunately, some of these articles are simply based on strong bias, and grouping both valid and invalid "according to science" articles together, it devalues the people whose work is groundbreaking in the scientific community.

Science, generally speaking, produces applicable and informative information that we should freely utilize. The problem with articles that use the word “science” in their titles draws immediate verification to its audiences. Because science is a reliable method in which we gather information, using the word to validate articles through its appearance, is unreliable. As people, we should practice skepticism (not in extreme ways), to promote critical thinking. If the appearance of the word ‘science’ validates the things we are reading, we have no reason to continue research, or to question the content of the articles. Sometimes, many of these articles lack significant scientific information, which means we have to think critically about the things we are reading.

Next time you’re scrolling through your Facebook newsfeed and click on an article that says "According to Science," find out which area of study it is applicable to, see who conducted the findings, and do a little more research for informed ideas.