How to take the science out of the “fake news” argument

When I started doing research for my book, I had no idea how much of it I’d be getting wrong.

For the first two years of my work, I spent a lot of time talking to people who were just beginning to understand the complexities of the world around us.

But the thing I really wanted to get at was the underlying issues of what it means to have science at our fingertips, what it is to be a citizen, and how we can all make the world a better place. 

As I worked through this process, I learned about a phenomenon that’s been brewing for decades: The phenomenon of “fake science.”

It’s a concept coined by sociologist David Buss in the 1950s to describe the phenomenon of people misinterpreting science to support their political agendas.

Buss called it the “bias-sensitivity” of science, and it’s a term that has become increasingly popular over the past few decades, particularly among academics.

For years, the concept has been a bit of a punching bag among social justice activists, who argue that when we do things like make statements like, “vaccines cause autism,” we’re essentially being biased against those who are anti-vaccine.

But for most people, the issue is not a partisan one.

For most people who are exposed to scientific information, they probably have some familiarity with it.

They may know that it’s scientifically supported, they may know how to read the research, or they may have seen it as a source of useful information on something they cared about.

They might even have some knowledge of the literature.

But for many people, this is all the information they have.

And for most of us, this kind of bias is deeply distressing.

“Fake science” is a very real problem.

As a result of a study conducted by sociologists Peter Kuznicki and Susan Wojcicki, people are far more likely to believe a false statement about vaccines than a true one, according to a 2016 report by the Pew Research Center.

In a recent study, researchers at the University of Southern California found that more than 70 percent of Americans believe that vaccines are unsafe and more than half believe they’re dangerous, even when they have been shown to be safe.

This isn’t necessarily a negative thing; it’s an opportunity to engage in a debate about the risks and benefits of vaccines.

But what happens when we use this opportunity to ignore scientific evidence that contradicts our beliefs?

When I started to think about how to better understand and address this issue, I realized that we need to do more than just focus on the misinformation we’re seeing.

We need to think critically about how we use science in everyday life, and then how we treat it when we’re in the throes of a public debate.

To be clear, this isn’t an argument for dismissing scientific evidence.

There are plenty of ways to use it to inform our decisions.

But we should be careful not to turn it into a battle of scientific knowledge versus political ideology.

In fact, it’s likely that the best way to deal with misinformation is to actually understand it.

If we want to make the right choices about the use of science in our everyday lives, then we need a way to understand it in a more nuanced way.

So I’ve been working on that goal for the past two years.

For years, I’ve taken an active role in building an ecosystem that connects people to the kinds of science they need, and which they want to have at their fingertips.

I’m part of a project called “Scientific Education for Everyone,” a collaboration between the Stanford Graduate School of Education, the University at Buffalo, the National Center for Science Education, and the Stanford Center for Social Research.

The idea behind it is that we’re constantly making decisions that affect the lives of our children, and we need as many tools as we can get our hands on to help us make these decisions.

We’ve used a number of tools in our work, from crowdsourcing to peer-review to social media.

These tools have allowed us to build a database of about 2.5 million peer-reviewed scientific articles, which we’ve then curated and made available to all of our students.

Each student who has read our content has their own personal review panel that they can join to help them make informed choices about scientific information.

This is a powerful way to engage people in the world of science.

It’s also a powerful tool for the academy.

Because of its focus on students and students’ access to science, the Stanford Program on the Science Education of All Students is able to produce the majority of our teaching materials.

This means that we can use the materials in our courses to provide students with the information that they need to be educated on science and the world.

But it also means that the materials we give to students also have to meet our educational goals.

We want our students to be well-informed about science, but we also want them to