Slashdot Mirror
The Spread of Ignorance (bbc.com)
New submitter Eric Eikrem writes: BBC Future has just published an interesting article on Robert Proctor, a science historian from Stanford University, who studies how people or companies with vested interests spread ignorance and obfuscate knowledge. The spread of ignorance follows certain patterns, whether it is about tobacco or climate change. 'Proctor found that ignorance spreads when firstly, many people do not understand a concept or fact and secondly, when special interest groups -- like a commercial firm or a political group – then work hard to create confusion about an issue. In the case of ignorance about tobacco and climate change, a scientifically illiterate society will probably be more susceptible to the tactics used by those wishing to confuse and cloud the truth.'
Somehow you sound like someone who tries to sell us the fact, that cooking food denaturates protein as if that somehow was a really hidden secret some sinister society in the background does not want us to know.
"Scientists always think they are right about everything."
Could you quote the study that came to that conclusion?
Or is the statement made up and a sample of ignorance and stupidity spread as per the topic of this thread?
Bert
Impressive! I think you just applied exactly what the article is talking about! You:
* Associated the author with religion.
* Godwinned
* Gave the author has a secret agenda
* Never actually disagreed with anything the article said.
Are you a professional agnotologist?
Except for climate science, where any question of the alleged "Consensus" is heresy suitable for burning at the stake.
That only happens if you ignore the existing evidence, and bring none of your own.
That particular technique is only used because it is effective. If it weren't, people wouldn't use it or would use something else instead. The problem isn't that arguments are being made in that way, it's that all of the different issues you've listed are really complicated and you can hardly expect that average person to have enough understanding of them or the ancillary knowledge necessary to make a reasoned decision. Add in human tendency for confirmation bias and what you've called "frame" becomes the most effective way in a democracy to effect the types of change that you want. We only see it because all of the other tactics or strategies have proven to be less viable and therefor the people who employ them less successful. It's merely natural selection in terms of presenting arguments.
I don't believe it makes it impossible to have a meaningful debate, only that people haven't yet figured out how they should debate against it. Rather than attacking the framing of the opposition, most simply construct one of their own. However, I suspect that if you study a particular frame well enough, the cracks become apparent and it's only a matter of pointing them out and using basic logic to point out the inconsistencies or the contradictions created by a particular frame. In the face of that, a person using a particular frame either has to stop using it, or revise it in such a way that it no longer creates those contradictions, but any frame that continues to be based on subjective beliefs will still continue to have those problems.
Once exposed, it cannot stand on its own. Adherents may continue to hold it up, simply out of stubbornness, but most people will see that the emperor has no clothes. The problem is that people are either too lazy to fully understand a particular issue and to fully explore the nuances and minutiae that are necessary in order to actually solve a problem or they have a vested financial interest in the problem not being solved or their proposed solution (as incorrect as it may be) being used. People are naturally too self-interested to be expected to always and completely cooperate in a way that resolves this problem. Perhaps if we lived in a truly post-scarcity world it might be achievable, but we don't so the discussion is moot.
The "Consensus" is a prime example of this.
Consensus has nothing to do with the science itself. Rather, it is what is appropriate to use when converting science to policy. A policy maker does not have the scientific background nor the time to perform science or to judge scientists. Rather, they have to depend on other scientists to do that job, and base the policy on the consensus. Unless, of course, you have a better alternative.