Abstract
This presentation identifies Evidence-Based Othering (EBO), a malinformation tactic targeting out-groups, using the authority of science to mask ideological motives and launder exclusionary beliefs. In this process, evidence is used not to present objective facts, but is cherry picked to generate consensus within an identity-based community around a predetermined conclusion that advances a specific agenda.
Despite persistent attempts by right-wing populists to discredit science, it still carries substantial cultural authority, even within conservative circles (Mann & Schleifer, 2020). Although the right has built a vast media infrastructure, it has failed to develop alternative systems that carry the same epistemic weight as science. It is, therefore, unsurprising that the processes, discourses, and conventions of science are frequently appropriated to provide the perception of credibility. Capitalizing on an audience’s limited disciplinary knowledge, entrepreneurs position themselves as trusted alternatives. They weaponize the audience’s lack of expertise, guiding them to interpret the evidence in ways that serve their ideological ends (Barber, 2025). Though it may appear fact-based and objective, EBO uses identity-based emotional appeals, framing interpretations to reinforce in-group identity and loyalty, while vilifying an out-group.
We present preliminary findings on an anti-pornography organization engaging in EBO. This group curates an extensive body of academic sources, situating them within an interpretive framework that describes pornography as a public-health crisis comparable to drug addiction. It creates a deviant out-group by offering moral claims as objective fact, in order to reinforce normative definitions of sexuality. The citation analysis showed that most references originated from peer-reviewed journals, a little less than half being open-access, with certain sources used repeatedly to support predetermined conclusions. The analysis revealed methods indicative of selective and ideologically-driven use of scientific evidence (Fagan, p. 23, 2006).
Furthermore, we discuss how EBO impacts the teaching of information evaluation. Though convenient, checklists are not sufficient for addressing the weaponization of science. However, while checklists can confirm if evidence has been used, they rarely encourage learners to reflect on how or why it has been done within particular contexts. For nuanced evaluations, learners must be taught evidence-based research practices such as the integration of evidence, ethical considerations, critical appraisal of sources, and transparent methodologies. Learners must also be taught to analyze the rhetorical goals of evidence-based practices, helping them see that evidence is not simply about truth or accuracy; it is used to persuade, legitimize, and frame arguments. We encourage this type of instruction to move beyond the one-shot, as this type of engaged learning builds over time.
The scale of EBO is staggering, and librarians cannot fight this battle alone. Despite repeated calls for broad collaboration in advancing information literacy, we continue to struggle to help others see the role it plays in our lives. The current moment demands a renewed and actionable commitment. Raising awareness of EBO, whether through ongoing collaborations with faculty or sustained outreach to the community, will likely be the most effective way to combat the exploitation of science and the demonizing of marginalized groups.
References
Barber, K. (2025). (Don’t) click here: Hyperlinks as a quasi-objectification strategy in epistemic legitimisation in extremists’ blog posts on sexual violence. Discourse, Context & Media (66) 100912. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2025.100912
Fagan, G. (2006). Diagnosing pseudoarchaeology. In G. Fagan (Ed.), Archaeological fantasies: How pseudoarchaeology misrepresents the past and misleads the public (pp. 23-46). Routledge.
Mann, M. & Schleifer, C. (2020). Love the science, hate the scientists: Conservative identity protects believe in science and undermines trust in scientists. Social Forces (99)1, pp. 305-332. DOI: 10.1093/sf/soz156
