Weaponizing authority - Kathleen Phillips, Joel Burkholder and Russell Hall
1.
Kat Phillips, JoelBurkholder, & Russ Hall
Penn State University
Weaponizing
Authority:
Teaching Information
Literacy in the age of
Evidence-Based Othering
2.
Evidence-Based Research isthe use of
prior research in a systematic
and transparent way to inform a new
study so that it is answering questions
that matter in a valid, efficient, and
accessible manner
Evidence-Based Othering is the
strategic appropriation and distortion
of scientific findings by actors who
reject expert consensus to depict
particular positions and populations as
inherently deviant or threatening,
thereby legitimizing exclusionary
measures under the guise of
objectivity
What is
Evidence
Based
Othering
?
An Introduction
3.
Moral Regulation
& Othering
MoralRegulation sets the rules for what counts
as:
Right
Normal
Acceptable
Labels those outside the rules as:
Deviant
Dangerous
Problematic
Together, they shape who is seen as a “threat”
Appealing to theCultural
Authority of Science
• Conveys legitimacy, objectivity, and
rationality
• Strengthens claims to urgency
• Acts as a rhetorical shield
Launders ideas
into circulation
Transferring
Moral Claims
into
“Objective
Fact”
6.
Burke & MillerMacPhee,2021
Pornography addiction serves
as an illustration of how
political actors and journalists
are interpreters and claims-
makers of scientific knowledge.
“
“
7.
Fight the NewDrug:
“It’s not religious or a moral approach,
it’s just the facts.”
MISSION: “Fight the New Drug (FTND) is a non-religious and non-legislative nonprofit that
exists to provide individuals the opportunity to make an informed decision regarding
pornography by raising awareness on its harmful effects using only science, facts, and personal
accounts.”
2009: Founded by a student entrepreneurial group at Brigham Young University
• Sought to “change the conversation around porn”
• Claimed they “became experts” on pornography's effects
• Concluded that research proved "its harm” and indicated “a legitimate epidemic growing in
our society.”
2011: Began offering live presentations
2016: Launched TruthAboutPorn.org, a database of research on the supposed harms of
pornography
2018: Released Brain, Heart, World, a free-to-view three-part documentary
2019: Launched Consider Before Consuming podcast
9.
Fight the NewDrug:
Public Critiques
Scientific Issues
• “Porn addiction” does not appear in the DSM-5 due to a lack of evidence
• Often disregards the scientific method and misinterprets findings
• Frames correlation as causation
Lack of Credentials
• Key figures behind FTND are not trained mental health professionals, sexuality experts, or researchers (e.g., “artists,
‑
writers, designers, filmmakers, and storytellers”)
• Cite anti-pornography activists (e.g., Hilton, Dines, Layton) without qualification
Rhetorical Issues
• One-sided interpretation of scientific results
• Uses fear-based messaging and emotionally-charged narratives
Financial and Motivational Incentives
• Does not demand industry reform
• “Framing porn as an addiction makes it possible to market high cost inpatient treatment” (Nicole Prause)
‑
• Sells access to its own intervention tool: Fortify
10.
Garret Fagan,
Diagnosing Pseudoarchaeology(2006)
Characteristics of Attitude
• Dogged adherence to outdated theoretical models
• Disparaging academia
• Appeal to academic authority
Characteristics of Procedure
• Huge Claims
• Selective and/or distorted presentation
• “Kitchen-sink” mode of argument
• Vague definitions
• Superficiality, sloppiness, and grossness of comparison
• Obsessed with esoterica
• A Farrago of Failings (e.g., logical fallacies, mystery-mongering, inconsistency, etc.)
11.
Methodology
Data Collection &Analysis
Get the Facts articles (n=15)
Individual citations (n=489)
Coding system based on Barber, 2024
Evidence Summary Tables
Collection
Citation categories: Scholarly, Gray, General
Cross evaluated
• Transparency
• Legitimization of assertions
• Support of claims
Analysis
12.
Scholarly (n= 344,70%): Book,
Book Chapter, Journal Article,
Review Article
Gray (n= 52, 11%): Documentary,
Editorial, Handbook Chapter,
Interview, Legal Docs, Poster
Abstract, Research Abstract,
Report, Thesis, Transcript, White
Paper
General (n= 91, 19%): Blog Post,
FAQ, Magazine Article, News,
Podcast, Press Release, Slide
Show, Video, Webpage
Source Types
13.
Methodology: Coding
Attribution (ATT):information expressed as explicitly originating from external sources
Averral: an assertion of truth
Based (BA): draws support from external source
like statistics or research findings
Non-Based (NBA): lacks any external support
Public Knowledge (PK): information presented as something “everyone knows” or widely
accepted
Epistemic Commitment (EP): the stance taken towards what is accepted as knowledge;
assertions based entirely on personal belief or opinion; no external evidence or attribution
Expert Knowledge (EK): claims that appear to rely on authoritative sources or
organizations
Legitimization of Assertion
14.
Methodology: Coding
Transparent (T):original source identified in anchor text
Non-Transparent (NT): original source not identified in anchor text
Transparency
Support of Claims
Yes (Y): original source (abstract, synopsis, full text) does correlate with or support
information provided in anchor text
No (N): original source (abstract, synopsis, full text) does not correlate with or support
information provided in anchor text
Unclear (U): unclear if original source (abstract, synopsis, full text) does or does not
correlate with or support information provided in anchor text
15.
Methodology: Coding
Legitimization ofAssertion: Examples
Code Quote
ATT-EX The researchers concluded, “sexualized women were perceived as having the least control over
their own lives...” (Rel3.5)
BA-EP In fact, there have been many documented instances of verified accounts posting nonconsensual
content, …material, or content …of …victims. (Soc4.21)
BA-EX As of the time this article was published, over 150 studies have demonstrated hypofrontality in
internet addiction, including more than a dozen studies that have demonstrated its presence in the
brains of porn consumers. (Ind2.16)
BA-PK In another incident, a young woman had to contact the police to get videos of her…removed from
a verified account on a popular porn site (Soc4.25)
NBA-EP With so many young people viewing pornography so early in their lives, many end up internalizing
toxic or harmful messages about sex. (Rel4.14)
NBA-EX So, with that in mind, considering that an estimated 91.5% of men and 60.2% of women consume
porn, let’s take a few moments to examine how porn may be affecting its consumers. (Soc2.5)
NBA-PK The reality is most young people are getting at least some of their education about sex from porn.
(Rel1.22)
16.
Analysis: Legitimization ofAssertion
Expert, Based Averral (BA-EX) most common overall; most common in Scholarly; common
in Gray; uncommon in General
Epistemic, Non-Based Averral (NBA-EP) second most common overall; next most
predominant in General; similar in Scholarly and Gray
Preliminary Results
17.
Analysis: Transparency
Most informationuse within the
anchor text was
non-transparent
Preliminary Results
Scholarly (5%) sources were less
likely to be transparent than
Gray (12%) or General (21%)
sources
18.
Analysis: Support
Preliminary Results
56%of scholarly sources provided no/uncertain
support to claims in anchor text.
77% of general sources did support claims in
anchor text.
51% of claims in anchor text
were supported by cited
resources.
19.
A Note onAccess
Claims were similarly supported
in resources with both abstract
and full text access
Preliminary Results
Nearly 39% of Scholarly were abstract only
98% of General were
full text
Discussion:
Performative Scientism
Authority canbe performed (and weaponized)
• The presence of evidence and scientific language (e.g. "hypofrontality") becomes the
argument
• Built-in expectations of scientific genres can perform credibility
Objectivity is a stance not a state
• Moral claims are reframed as a medical problem and/or risk management
• Evidence can be employed as a tool of identity maintenance and boundary policing
Contingency of science can be exploited
• Certainty and causality can be easily implied…and difficult to correct
• Reduces the number of acceptable "solutions" to the one they are peddling
Context can be controlled
• Context-stripped evidence is a canvas for ideological aims
22.
Question
for the
Audience
What doyou
think the
implications for
learning are?
Sheesh, nobody told
me there was going to
be a pop quiz…
23.
Develop expertise
• Disciplinarycontent
• Rhetorical convention
• Genre Awareness
Focus on Discourse Analysis
• Center context
• Audiences and stakeholders
• Dominant narratives
• Emotions and anxieties at play
Understand Epistemic Ecosystems
• How audiences form trust
• What gatekeepers shape access
• How are messages amplified
Ask Not Just What Evidence Is For, But What It Is Evidence Of
Implications:
CHUCK THE CHECKLIST
A rhetorical practicethat strips context,
simplifies complexity, and sanitizes content to
produce a simpler, more manageable narrative.
By limiting what audiences can consider,
audiences are steered towards interpretations
that align with an author’s preferred conclusion.
• Narrows range of possible or acceptable
interpretations
• Makes framing feel like common sense
• Hides ideological commitments to make
everything seem more palatable
• Reinforces polarization
Interpretative Flattening
27.
Please direct yourcompliments to:
Kat Phillips, kec5013@psu.edu
Please direct your questions and comments to:
Joel Burkholder, jmb7609@psu.edu
Please direct your concerns to:
Russ Hall, rah29@psu.edu
Thank You!
28.
Reference
s
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.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2025.100912
Boudry, M. (2022). Diagnosing pseudoscience-by getting rid of the Demarcation Problem. Journal for
General Philosophy of Science, 53, 83–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-021-09572-4
Burke, K., & MillerMacPhee, A. (2021). Constructing pornograpy addiction’s harm in science, news
media, and politics. Social Forces, 99(3), 1334–1362. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1093/sf/soaa035
Fagan, G. (2022). Diagnosing pseudoarchaeology. In Archaeological fantasies: How
pseudoarchaeology misrepresents the past and Misleads the Public (pp. 23–46). Psychology Press.
Mann, M., & Schleifer, C. F. (2019). Love the science, hate the scientists: Conservative identity
protects belief in science and undermines trust in scientists. Social Forces, 99(1), 305–332.
https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2021.2019317
Perry, S. L. (2022). Banning because of science or in spite of it? Scientific authority, religious
conservatism, and support for outlawing pornography. Social Forces, 100(3), 1385–1414.
https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1093/sf/soab024
Rothman, E. F. (2021). Pornography and Public Health. Oxford University Press.
Tillery, D., & Bloomfield, E. F. (2022). Hyperrationality and rhetorical constellations in digital climate
change denial: A multi-methodological analysis of the discourse of Watts up with That. Technical
Communication Quarterly, 31(4), 356–373. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2021.2019317
Editor's Notes
#1 Define EBO
Our Research Results
Implications for Learners
Next Steps
#3 WHY TALK ABOUT EBO?
Interconnected processes
Moral regulation refers to the processes by which societies establish and enforce norms and values that govern individual and collective behavior
Othering labels people or groups who fall outside those boundaries as deviant or threatening.
Together, they work to police behavior and identity:
Moral norms create the standards
Othering enforces them by marking certain groups as the “problem”
Moral regulation and othering for fun and profit! Can serve ideological and financial goals
Happening across multiple, controversial topics
#4 Borrowed from biblical scholar Dan McClellan
People use identity markers (e.g., Strict Father Morality)to define boundaries and structure power, sometimes disregarding evidence to maintain these identities
#6 This presentation is NOT: a defense of pornography
This presentation IS: Pro Information Literacy and Anti-Unethical Misuse of Scientific Information
#7 SUBJECT: an anti-pornography organization that frames pornography as a public‑health crisis akin to drug addiction
WHY SELECTED: it uses a curated set of sources to pathologize a moral issue, masking an ideological agenda with the scientific process
Consumers of Pornography are engaging in morally deviant behavior
"Othered" for something they already feel bad about
#9 TO BE CLEAR: The scientific consensus does not support the claims that pornography is “addictive” or that it is a “public health crisis”
References
Dickson, EJ (2014, May 7). Can a non-religious web-savvy campaign against pornography work?. The Daily Dot.
Fight the New Drug. (2015). Fortify: The fighter’s guide to overcoming pornography addiction. Familius LLC.
Hablin, J. (2016, April 14). Inside the Movement to Declare Pornography a 'Health Crisis. The Atlantic.
LaPlante, M. (2018, February 17). In Utah, the fight against porn is increasingly being framed as a public health crisis. The Washington Post.
Parker, N. H., Hodson, K., Bennion, K. M., & Hickman, S. (2016, October 2). Op-ed: Utah students need real sex ed, not 'Fight the New Drug'. The Salt Lake Tribune.
Prause, N., Pfaus, J., Blaine, S., Georgiadis, J., Kieffaber, P., Janssen, E., Cantor, J., & Hoffmann, H. (2016, December 12). Op-ed: Anti-porn school program misrepresents science. The Salt Lake Tribune.
#10 What separates SCIENCE from PSEUDOSCIENCE
Pseudoarcheology (p. 27): “…its practitioners adopt an inflexible stance toward the evidence, which is shoehorned into their pet conclusions at all costs;” “contemptuous of context;” “simplistic, despite its surface veneer of complexity”
(p. 28): “…in the service of ideology that limits (if not actively predetermines) what conclusions are allowable.”
OBFUSCATION (CITE)
#11 EXTREME CASE STUDY: a qualitative research method that focuses on analyzing highly unusual, rare, or outlying instances of a phenomenon rather than typical or average cases
CRITICAL RESEARCH ANALYSIS: detailed, subjective evaluation of a text, theory, or data that breaks down its components to judge its value, validity, and underlying assumptions
#13 deep, often implicit frameworks that guide how people know what they know
#16 100% of citations were used to legitimize assertion
CLEAR APPEAL TO SCIENTIFIC AUTHORITY
Both in TYPE and ASSERTION, they attempt to use references to “studies,” “research findings,” “researchers,” etc. to legitimize their interpretation of the evidence. That said, there are a fair amount attempts to legitimize epistemic positions
Don’t seem to attach the same value to General. Why? Maybe: Use sources, often in lists, as anecdotes to illustrate the “severity” of a problem
CAVEAT: Fight ignores all evidence might contradict their claims (e.g., Nicole Prause, David Ley)
#17 An appeal to scientific authority without making it easy to verify
Transparency ties assertion to a single source. Get the Facts pages, often used aggregate smuggling (e.g., saying “multiple studies" show something, when it is only one or two)
Amplifies weak evidence or obscures contested science
Creates perception of a robust evidence base and/or scientific consensus
#18 Some were true, many were unclear or untrue (CITE? BEST LIES ARE WRAPPED IN TRUTH)
That said, it is very hard to determine veracity for someone without knowledge/expertise to determine
Why so no/unclear? Allows them to make a point. But also maintain rhetorical flexibility, avoid accountability, and blend fact with inference.
Rhetorical Tactics (more on this later)
Academic Language (e.g., “neuroplasticity,” “supranormal stimulus”)
Strategic Vagueness (e.g., )
Cherry-picking
Decontextualization
Implied or false causation
Inappropriate application (e.g., “The Coolidge Effect”)
Ignores all science that might contradict their conclusions
General: Already authored for broader audiences, they can understand more readily; not as easy to make speak to your agenda
Next step is to analyze the Yes citations to evaluate context, cherry picking, etc.
#19 Access didn’t seem to have a significant impact Support. Some evidence that FIGHT actually read some of the articles (e.g., quotes from Discussion sections). Would seem to suggest they lack expertise or are ideologically-driven.
But for the visitors of the Get the Facts pages, they wouldn’t be able to access scholarly materials nearly 40% of the time. Must take FIGHT’s word.
#20 Have to know a lot in a variety of fields to adequately evaluate claims
#21 USE OF SCIENCE FOR IDEOLOGICAL PURPOSES
WEAPONIZED AUTHORITY
#25 Need to do more. Specifically, the differences between the Individual/Relationship and Society pages (explain)
#26 Context changes meaning by acting as a filter for interpretation. Need to limit its influence
Strategies:
Genre mimicry
Strategic Vagueness
Cherry-picking
Decontextualization
Implied or false causation
Aggregate smuggling
Binary reframing
Selective timelines
Most read
Most read
