Science in times of denialism: Can Law save Galileo?

Abstract

The anti-scientific discourse is not something typical of this time nor something linked only to the recent Covid-19 pandemic that we have experienced and, perhaps, already forgotten too soon. Anti-scientism and its expressions have accompanied humanity since its origins or, especially, from the moment science began to take on a certain body. However, currently the crisis of representative democracy,
with the emergence of populism, and online information have caused the anti-scientific discourse to gain new momentum. This speech has a basis no longer religious as decades ago, but essentially political. The rejection of science or certain scientific findings constitutes the new emotional narrative that populism uses. In this work we are going to analyze to what extent anti-scientific discourse can be constitutionally limited, both from the perspective of the sender of the message and its recipient, and this, remembering that freedom of expression and creation and, therefore, of scientific dissemination They have in our constitutional system an evident preferred position that connects with said objective dimension as indispensable instruments for the promotion of a true democratic society.