5.6: Science Sensationalism and Literacy

Science and Society: Science Sensationalism and Literacy

What's In a Headline?

To begin this section, read over the following three titles about solar activity and their potential impact on Earth. Go ahead and click on the option that seems most appealing to you and skim over the materials.

Option 1: Should you be worried about solar storms?

Option 2: A giant solar flare is inevitable, and humans are completely unprepared

Option 3: Solar Storm Damage on Earth

BEFORE MOVING ON: Take time to actually choose an option above and skim over the materials before you proceed!

Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\) : Solar Flares. This image, taken by NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory, shows a subset of extreme ultraviolet light that highlights the extremely hot material in a solar flare. (Public Domain; NASA's Scientific Visualization Studio via Wikimedia Commons) Accessible description of Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\).

Now for the real, actually important part: Why did you choose the title that you ended up selecting? Were you going for cold, hard facts about the Sun? Or, were you more interested in the title that sounded the most dramatic? Maybe the question-formatted title of Option 1 seemed appealing, maybe you just clicked on one randomly, or, maybe you opted for, "I'll click on all of them to be sure I get a little bit of everything". Whatever the case may be, writers and content creators put significant thought into how they might grab people's attention, all starting with the title. This attention-grabbing strategy applies across all forms of media, including articles, videos, and even the list of sources provided on the AI-generated Summary page when searching the internet.

Astronomy Applications and Literacy

Astronomy has long been a target for science sensationalism, such as content with similar emotion-provoking titles as Option 2. The options have been pasted again here for convenience:

Option 1: Should You Really Worry about Solar Flares?

Option 2: A giant solar flare is inevitable, and humans are completely unprepared

Option 3: Solar Storm Damage on Earth

If you compare Option 2 with Option 1, what differences do you notice in terms of your own thoughts or emotions after reading each title? Option 1 is in the format of a thought-provoking question, which could be a source of curiosity for readers. How about Option 3, what kind of emotions or thoughts does that title produce?

Now, realistically, which option did you click on first? Well, if you selected Option 2 because of the dramatic title, you are not alone! Consider which option brought up more thoughts of danger or mystery, or which article might give an objective point-of-view of this topic. To be clear, there is no right or wrong answer. The goal is to simply notice the different approaches of discussing solar activity in each title, and the realistic fact that content creators and publishers will use any means possible to attract more views.

In some circles, this topic of conversation is discussed as science communication, or even science literacy. Outside of academic contexts, it's an open question as to how the average person consumes scientific material. As astronomy students and citizen scientists, it's important to consider how you obtain reliable information on any science topic, especially in a rapidly evolving digital landscape with AI-generated content and other sources that may prioritize gaining your attention over scientific accuracy.

There is no single solution for ensuring all the information you engage with is valid, especially if tasked with a class project or other activity involving research. As a starting place, you might consider how you engaged with scientific material before enrolling in an astronomy class, your current thoughts around credible sources of information, and how you use AI to gain new information. It is a complex topic to think about, but very much worth your time as you continue your education journey.

Future Directions of Astronomy and Emerging Technologies

In fact, the world of astronomy is no stranger to grappling with new technologies, which have completely changed how scientists handle their scientific findings. From photographic plates to digital cameras in telescopes, and early computers to systems that process data thousands of times faster than manual methods, each advancement has dramatically expanded our understanding of the universe. With each iteration, astronomers have shifted their methods and ways of thinking to match the emerging technology. Figure \(\PageIndex{2}\) shows how technology has enabled astronomers to see billions of objects in the universe, whereas the most detailed catalogs in the past 100 years only included around 200,000 objects. Since the work of Annie Jump Cannon and others in creating the Henry Draper Catalog of 20,000 stars, astronomical catalogs have grown steadily in size. The Dark Energy Survey cataloged nearly 1 billion objects, more than 4 times that of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS), the premier survey of the past decade. The Large Synoptic Survey Telescope will soon detect billions of objects, dwarfing both surveys.

Figure \(\PageIndex{2}\) : Large Datasets. This graph shows how the size of astronomical catalogs has grown since the Henry Draper Catalog of 20,000 stars, with recent surveys like the Dark Energy Survey and the upcoming Large Synoptic Survey Telescope cataloging in the billions of objects. (CC BY 4.0; J. Najita, M. Newhouse & NOAO/AURA/NSF via Wikimedia Commons) Accessible description of Figure \(\PageIndex{2}\).

A recent article published in Science magazine highlighted various scientists' thoughts and concerns about Large Language Models (LLMs) in the world of astrophysics. The general consensus is one of acceptance to use AI as a tool for efficiency in the data analysis, coding, and writing process. With each passing year, LLMs become more advanced in their ability to meaningfully contribute to each step of the scientific process. In terms of astronomy research, one might ask, "Can AI agents ask their own scientific questions and find their own answers"? According to the researchers interviewed for the article, the answer is still no, at least for the time being.

Dr. Cecilia Garraffo, a theoretical astrophysicist, recounted her experiment to work with various AI agents to solve the Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet equations for a rotating black hole. She first trained a neural network to solve the equations numerically, then worked with publicly available LLMs to solve them analytically. Both options failed in the pursuit to produce any meaningful results past what is already known by humans.

Another scientist, Dr. Rodrigo Córdova Rosado, took a different approach to use AI to interpolate between the best existing general relativity textbooks and write a new one, complete with sample problems and figures generated by scripts it wrote in the math software Mathematica. At the time of the article's publication, he was still checking the book for errors. In any case, this new strategy of AI-produced work and human-checked publications may be a future direction of research in astronomy and astrophysics.

The article goes on to detail some of the larger philosophical concerns that scientists have about AI agents and LLMs in the research and publication process. Numerous journals have seen an uptick in submissions with blatant AI plagiarism, with few guidelines or regulations for its use. Undergraduate physics and astronomy students also express concerns as being treated as disposable while they are still developing skills to surpass the ability of LLMs. None of the interviewees were confident in their projections of how drastic these concerns may be, given the unpredictable future of AI in science and society.

In any case, one timeless truth in all of science is humanity's pursuit of reliable and trustworthy information. At the core of this pursuit is the scientific process itself, using a methodical and iterative approach, with independently verified results that anyone can reproduce. Despite any uncertainty in emerging technologies, these fundamental elements of research and verification will remain unchanged for the foreseeable future.

As you spend more time with materials from this text or as a student of Astronomy, we encourage you to note down the websites and other sources that you engage with, knowing that astronomy educators pursue the most accurate and reliable sources possible. Also, pay close attention to any science materials you engage with in your free time, and whether you find them more or less reliable. We have included several additional resources on AI literacy and reliability in the next section, which we hope will provide useful as you engage with other astronomy materials on the internet.

Further Exploration

• Read about how short-term AI literacy intervention does not reduce over-reliance on incorrect ChatGPT recommendations.
• Learn about AI Hallucinations and Bias from an MIT report.
• Read this report about AI accuracy from the California Learning Network.
• Learn why the United Nations recommends that you should never assume AI answers are true.

References

Naddaf and Quill, 2026, https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-00969-z

Sokol, J., 2026, https://www.science.org/content/article/amid-flood-ai-advances-astrophysicists-are-questioning-soul-their-field