physics.soc-phMar 13, 2026

Large Language Models and Scientific Discourse: Where's the Intelligence?

Authors: Harry Collins, Simon Thorne

Organizations: Institute of Education, UCL, 20 Bedford Way, London, WC1H OAL, UK. · School of Technologies, Cardiff Metropolitan University, 200 Western Avenue, Cardiff, CF5 2YB, UK.

Read PDF
Ask AI
Cite

Copy citation

DOINot available for this paper

Abstract

We explore the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) by comparing the way they gather data with the way humans build knowledge. Here we examine how scientific knowledge is made and compare it with LLMs. The argument is structured by reference to two figures, one representing scientific knowledge and the other LLMs. In a 2014 study, scientists explain how they choose to ignore a 'fringe science' paper in the domain of gravitational wave physics: the decisions are made largely as a result of tacit knowledge built up in social discourse, most spoken discourse, within closed groups of experts. It is argued that LLMs cannot or do not currently access such discourse, but it is typical of the early formation of scientific knowledge. LLMs 'understanding' builds on written literatures and is therefore insecure in the case of the initial stages of knowledge building. We refer to Colin Fraser's 'Dumb Monty Hall problem' where in 2023 ChatGPT failed though a year later or so later LLMs were succeeding. We argue that this is not a matter of improvement in LLMs ability to reason but in the change in the body of human written discourse on which they can draw (or changes being put in by humans 'by hand'). We then invent a new Monty Hall prompt and compare the responses of a panel of LLMs and a panel of humans: they are starkly different but we explain that the previous mechanisms will soon allow the LLMs to align themselves to humans once more. Finally, we look at 'overshadowing' where a settled body of discourse becomes so dominant that LLMs fail to respond to small variations in prompts which render the old answers nonsensical. The 'intelligence' we argue is in the humans not the LLMs

More in this topic

Scientific Reasoning in Language Models

Scientific reasoning in language models studies how AI systems use evidence, domain knowledge, and tools to solve problems and support discovery.

See all 144 papers

Explore similar work

CardsList
Apr 28, 2026

Large language models eroding science understanding: an empirical study of malignment

This paper is accepted and in press for AI and Ethics. This paper includes the supplementary data file at the end of the manuscript. This study examines whether large language models (LLMs) can reliably answer scientific questions and demonstrates how easily they can be influenced by fringe scientific material. The authors modified custom LLMs to prioritise knowledge in selected fringe papers on the Fine Structure Constant and Gravitational Waves, then compared their responses with those of domain experts and standard LLMs. The altered models produced fluent, convincing answers that contradicted scientific consensus and were difficult for non-experts to detect as misleading. The results show that LLMs are vulnerable to manipulation and cannot replace expert judgment, highlighting risks for public understanding of science and the potential spread of misinformation.

Harry Collins, Hartmut Grote, Paul Newbury +2

i · ii · iii

LLM EvaluationKnowledge Conflicts in Language ModelsScientific QALLM Reliability
AskPDF
May 26, 2026

Can LLMs extract scientific consensus? A case study in high-temperature superconductivity

Scientific knowledge is increasingly dispersed across vast and heterogeneous scientific literature, where important claims are often implicit, evolving, and internally debated. While large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive performance in information extraction and summarization, their ability to recover latent scientific consensus remains unclear. Here, we investigate this problem in the context of high-temperature superconductivity (HTS), a long-standing and highly debated topic in condensed matter physics, as a challenging testbed. Using near 18,000 highly-cited publications over the past seven decades, we construct a structured knowledge graph linking competing superconducting mechanisms, material families, evidential modalities, and citation relations. We find that LLM-extracted representations recover coherent and physically interpretable structures, including family-dependent mechanism profiles, evidence-specific correlations, and citation-mediated temporal evolution of scientific beliefs. Ablation studies on LLM further show that the global structure remains robust across prompting, decoding, and model variations. Our results suggest that LLMs can indeed serve as scalable tools for deciphering scientific knowledge in domains characterized by competing interpretations and evolving knowledge.

Mouyang Cheng, Wenhao He, Zhuotao Jin +9

Center for Computational Science and Engineering, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA. · Department of Materials Science and Engineering, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA. · Department of Physics, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA. +5

LLM Information Extraction
AskPDF
Apr 20, 2026

AI scientists produce results without reasoning scientifically

Large language model (LLM)-based systems are increasingly deployed to conduct scientific research autonomously, yet whether their reasoning adheres to the epistemic norms that make scientific inquiry self-correcting is poorly understood. Here, we evaluate LLM-based scientific agents across eight domains, spanning workflow execution to hypothesis-driven inquiry, through more than 25,000 agent runs and two complementary lenses: (i) a systematic performance analysis that decomposes the contributions of the base model and the agent scaffold, and (ii) a behavioral analysis of the epistemological structure of agent reasoning. We observe that the base model is the primary determinant of both performance and behavior, accounting for 41.4% of explained variance versus 1.5% for the scaffold. Across all configurations, evidence is ignored in 68% of traces, refutation-driven belief revision occurs in 26%, and convergent multi-test evidence is rare. The same reasoning pattern appears whether the agent executes a computational workflow or conducts hypothesis-driven inquiry. They persist even when agents receive near-complete successful reasoning trajectories as context, and the resulting unreliability compounds across repeated trials in epistemically demanding domains. Thus, current LLM-based agents execute scientific workflows but do not exhibit the epistemic patterns that characterize scientific reasoning. Outcome-based evaluation cannot detect these failures, and scaffold engineering alone cannot repair them. Until reasoning itself becomes a training target, the scientific knowledge produced by such agents cannot be justified by the process that generated it.

Martiño Ríos-García, Nawaf Alampara, Chandan Gupta +5

Laboratory of Organic and Macromolecular Chemistry (IOMC), Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Humboldstr. 10, 07743 Jena, Germany · Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, Hauz Khas, New Delhi 110016, India · School of Interdisciplinary Research, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, Hauz Khas, New Delhi 110016, India +3

AI Agent ReliabilityScientific ReasoningLLM Agent EvaluationLLM ReliabilityAutonomous Scientific DiscoveryScientific Reasoning in Language Models+2
AskPDF