Opaque Epistemic Mediation: How LLM Deployment Configurations Shape the Validation of Pseudo-Science

Large language models are being proposed as agents in scientific workflows, in domains where no downstream verifier exists. Such deployment assumes the model can distinguish reliable scientific literature from unreliable literature, a capability that has not yet been directly measured. Existing benchmarks evaluate factuality on questions with known answers; the failure mode we target here is different. We introduce a probe corpus of 42 retracted, fraudulent, and pseudoscientific papers, paired with a methodology for eliciting and scoring single-shot model engagement with each paper's framing. Each probe pairs a preamble extracted near-verbatim from the target paper with a scientifically plausible study-design request. The probes span five claim types: fabricated observation, pseudophysical mechanism, magical premise, legitimization bridge, and cargo-cult experiment. Two complementary scores measure whether a model rejects the flawed premise outright (IFR-a) and whether it recognizes the unreliability while still engaging (IFR-i). A depth score, the Engagement Depth Index (EDI), quantifies reproduction of paper- or field-specific withheld details. Across 30 models and 10 repeated runs, aggregate IFR-a is 0.93 $\pm$ 0.004 and aggregate IFR-i is 0.809 $\pm$ 0.009. Models engaged with untenable premises in 95% of all non-empty responses. Every evaluated model fails more than 71% of agentic probes, and 22 of 30 models fail more than 90% of the time. Rejections are concentrated on a small number of high-notoriety topics and specific probes, and disappear under matched-structure controls. These results are consistent with topic-keyed safety behavior rather than robust epistemic competence, and indicate an urgent need for guardrail infrastructure for scientific deployment of language models.

This paper is under review in AI and Ethics 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.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly consulted on contested scientific questions, raising the concern that they will sycophantically retreat from established consensus when a user signals doubt -- drifting toward a false balance that treats settled science as one view among several. We test this across three open instruction-tuned models (Llama-3.1-8B, Qwen2.5-7B, Mistral-7B), three consensus-science domains (climate, vaccines, evolution), and single- and multi-turn settings, combining behavioral measurement with linear probing and activation patching. We do not observe sycophantic retreat. Instead, models show three distinct policies under the same skeptical pressure: reactive assertion, where consensus assertion increases rather than decreases (Llama); surface hedging, where tone softens while the position holds (Qwen); and non-response (Mistral). Pairwise judgments confirm the reactive shift is stance, not style (63.6%, p=.007), and a decomposition identifies increased consensus assertion, not false balance, as its driver (beta=+0.042 per dose, p<1e-77). Linear probes localize the divergence to middle layers -- perfect separation in Llama and Qwen versus 72% in Mistral, with non-overlapping confidence intervals -- indicating the non-responsive model does not linearly represent the skepticism signal at all. Crucially, this robustness does not transfer: it attenuates across domains and, in the safety-critical vaccine domain, can reverse, with myth-rebuttal weakening under skeptical pressure. We synthesize these into a four-way taxonomy separating active from accidental robustness, and argue that behavioral evaluation alone cannot distinguish a model that resists skepticism because it understands the signal from one that only appears to resist because it fails to perceive it.