Abstract

This article provides a critical examination of the concepts of post-truth and pseudo-science, underlining the importance of avoiding overly simplistic interpretations when exploring alternative knowledge and the associated protests in the realm of science. Our central hypothesis posits that the underlying causes of this pervasive mistrust can be discerned by considering significant shifts in the social, political, and epistemological landscape. A highly interdisciplinary approach is thus needed to elaborate an articulated theoretical framework that is rooted in dialogue and comparison between diverse branches of scholarly literature, which have hitherto tended to operate in a largely disconnected manner. In a contemporary context where science-related decisions increasingly shape everyday life and the relationship between science and citizens has evolved beyond unquestioning obedience to authority, delegitimisation and conflict find a more convincing reading when considering the confluence of interpretive elements related to the radicalisation of modernity and the democratisation of boundary work, along with the patterns describing emergent styles of political participation. The escalating polarization, characterized by mutual stigmatization and a reluctance to engage in dialogue, represents one of the most pressing and perilous challenges confronting contemporary democracies. To address these concerns, our conclusion advocates for the pursuit of democratization in the management of the intricate interplay between science, politics, and society. Despite the complexities inherent in our current climate of polarization, democratization presents a more promising and forward-thinking strategy for navigating this terrain than the prevailing focus on countering disinformation.