Kant, Information Disorder and Science Denial in the Age of Technology

Abstract

Recent surveys (e.g., Kennedy and Alec Tyson 2023; Milkoreit and Smith 2024; Hamilton 2022) indicate that science denial is a widespread phenomenon. Levels of contestation surrounding urgent practical matters, such as climate science and vaccination, are currently rising across many democracies. While disagreement over scientific issues has intensified rather than diminished over time, science denial is no longer a marginal or episodic problem but a structural feature of the contemporary epistemic landscape. At the same time, science denial is not a unitary phenomenon. It involves a constellation of interrelated challenges, including the spread of misinformation and disinformation (e.g., Hoes et al. 2025; Oreskes and Conway 2010), declining trust in public institutions (e.g., Contessa 2025; McIntyre 2021), diminished confidence in expertise (Contessa 2023; Nichols 2017), and increasingly polarized public spheres in which disagreement over scientific claims tracks political and identity-based divisions (Kleinfeld 2023; Iyengar and Westwood 2015). These dynamics are further exacerbated by contemporary technologies (e.g., Till et al. 2025; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2025). Digital media and algorithmic information environments weaken traditional mechanisms of epistemic authority and validation, amplify selective exposure, and accelerate the circulation of contested claims. The result is not simply ignorance, but a complex and persistent epistemic crisis. The panel welcomes contributions that engage Kant’s philosophy in relation to all forms of science denial. Possible points of entry include, without being limited to, Kant’s epistemology, logic, ethics, and political and juridical philosophy. Kant’s epistemology and logic are especially relevant to the topic of science denial for two main reasons. First, Kant assigns a central role to science within the Enlightenment project and offers a nuanced account of scientific knowledge, its limits, and its legitimate use. Second, Kant emphasizes autonomous thinking, understood as thinking for oneself while remaining accountable to shared standards of reason. This ideal stands in tension with epistemic practices driven by prejudice or uncritical deference to authority, which are characteristic features of science denial. On the moral level, Kant’s account of responsibility and sincerity bears on individual duties in belief formation and public communication. On the political level, Kant’s defense of freedom of expression and the public use of reason raises questions about the limits of doubt and critique when these threaten the social conditions of scientific inquiry itself. On the juridical level, Kant’s conception of public right invites discussion of the role of institutions, norms, and regulation in sustaining epistemic trust without undermining individual autonomy. Overall, the panel aims to situate Kant’s philosophy in productive dialogue with contemporary debates on science denial in the age of technology.

Title	Details
Public Reason in Crisis: Kantian Practical Philosophy and Digital Disinformation	View Paper Details
Informational Disorder and the Discipline of Reason in Public Discourse	View Paper Details
Kant, Misinformation, and the Public Sphere	View Paper Details
Legitimate Doubt and Science Denial in the Age of Technology: A Kantian Perspective	View Paper Details
Science Denial as the Breakdown of Epistemic Trust: A Kantian Perspective	View Paper Details