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.'
This has been going on for 6,000 years.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Microsoft Windows 10 is a good operating system - experts agree!
Like that guy in Police Academy? Like someone with a name like that could have anything useful to say! (BTW. Tobacco IS good for you!)
Trump supporters are the experts in this.
and those wind turbines are actually motorized to make the libtards happy and ruin the countryside!
see how easy?
"The spread of ignorance follows certain patterns, whether it is about tobacco or climate change"
It's fascinating that these are the topics that pop up here in regards to "ignorance" which implies right there that this article has an agenda.
People are very VERY used to the concept of gaslighting and more importantly a concept called the "con". Used since the dawn of time by politicians and leaders to get their way.
The problem has never been that the public disagrees that "smoking is bad for you". The problem has always been its use as a whipping point to socially control the populace. Just like prohibition was at the turn of the century in the US.
Likewise for climate change as the current cause celebre - It's the solutions, again, being demanded. Switch over all gasoline engines to battery usage (which pollute and damage the environment in just as many other ways as battery creation (and reclamation) will cause pollution and environmental damage of other kinds. Or rework the economies in favor of socialist ones.
The people are cautious of the cons and the scams - and that's a good thing, not ignorance.
Always comes back to climate change. Take a hard look at the field. Is it not the most politically tainted field of science since the Copernican model of the universe? Climate change is a socialist political movement. Their hysterical predictions never come to pass. It isn't ignorance that causes the masses to reject it, it is the lack of credibility of the field. Rationalize this any way you want.
an ill wind that blows no good
Good to know.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
.....in dumbed down America.
Even American documentaries want to make you throw a chair through the tv.
You can't "spread ignorance" like you spread jelly. To fight knowledge you have to block someone else's speech, or spread disinformation to counter it, or harm people's ability to think by drugging them or hitting them on the head.
An invisible sky man created everything 6000 years or so and later on a boat saved everything but the dinosaurs when the sky man drowned the whole world.
If you actually believe that then you are intellectually retarded.
They'll be first against the wall when the revolution comes.
I think that it also helps that there's fertile ground for denial.
For example with climate change, there's a large number of Americans who see hard-core environmentalists as a bunch of hippies who are constantly yelling that the sky is falling and want government intervention in everything. (To be fair, there are vocal environmentalists that fit this mold, and they're very vocal.) So, it doesn't take much to cause a knee-jerk reaction against the claims of environmentalists because of negative perceptions of environmentalists in general. In fact, it might happen even without the prodding of people who want to peddle ignorance. Here's an interesting example of what I'm talking about: an otherwise thoughtful person who automatically rejected climate change ideas simply because of the source but has since reevaluated his beliefs.
Smoking also had fertile ground for ignorance. Since there was a push for government involvement, anti-nanny-staters were likely to automatically push back. Tobacco companies pedaling ignorance had fertile ground there too.
The article on "agnotology" is an example of "agnotology": let's higlight dangers of cigarettes and unworkable Donald Trump policies as opposed to dangers of strict veganism and unworkable Bernie Sanders policies.
Trump is certainly does his best to spread ignorance, but many of his supporters see through at least some of it. I'm somewhat loathed to link to a slate.com article, but this one interviews Trump supporters about climate change. Many of his supporters see climate change as real and caused by humans, but they prioritize other things or thinks that Trump will come around on the issue. Many people support Trump because they think he is a successful business man, a man of action, and is not a dirty Washington politician. I take issue with the first two claims, but Trump hasn't really had to propagate those claims; the media was doing that long before he ran for president.
- GMO FUD
- "Processed" food FUD
- aspartame FUD
- nuclear FUD
- socialism works great -- forget Russia, Eastern Europe, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, China before 1985, etc., etc.. only Sweden and Norway matter
- animal rights
- endangered polar bears
- sodium is bad for you
- fat is bad for you
- reefer madness
- "the right side of history"
- social justice
The list could go on for a long time. There are lots of self-interested storytellers and even more useful idiots.
So If he is really investigating the spread of ignorance, why did he use a religious term of "denier" to explain people that doubt climate change is as dire as some report? This is a guy that has wrote books about how forward thinking the Nazi's were about science. He has multiple books about tobacco, and testified against the tobacco industry. Does that discount it all? No, but full disclosure wasn't done and it defiantly shows a bit of an agenda on Proctor's part.
Everyone is too busy watching distracting nonsense to actually put some thought into what people are saying. They believe it because it is easier than thinking.
Is a fun little novel by Paolo Bacigalupi relating to this topic.
It about tech and Silicon Valley, too. This is really just the same old profiteering, except that now we refuse to enforce laws that might stem the flow of $$$
I think these two quotes are relevant:
“The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance.” - Michael Crichton
“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” - Mark Twain
Apple products are the greatest in the entire universe. If Apple products don't do what you need to do then you should simply change how you do things. Conformance is bliss and it can be yours if you always buy our latest and greatest bit of shiny.
If a climate model can't explain/show the past history of observed data, then how can it be relied upon to predict the future?
Release all the data used for these claims, as well as the model. Isn't saving the world more important than being secretive with this information? Or is it more important to keep the incoming funding and celebrity?
If a climate model can't explain/show the past history of observed data, then how can it be relied upon to predict the future? Release all the data used for these claims, as well as the model. Isn't saving the world more important than being secretive with this information? Or is it more important to keep the incoming funding and celebrity? I don't know why Slashdot logged me out ... :/
is it that bad seein a hot chick again? if i see a hot chick walkin down the hall i dont say "repost"
Many people are brought up to blindly accept authority and facts without evidence or actually thinking it over for themselves. Facts are taught as subjective, with an emphasis that reality itself is subjective. This is problematic because it starts with their family at infancy.
Further, those who excel at education or in more extreme cases even participate are ostracized and in more severe cases physically beaten for the simple crime of thinking for themselves. It is considered "uncool" to be smart in many circles and further being violent and stupid are sought after qualities. Is it any wonder that these groups tend to have the worst track records with reality acceptance and actual societal productivity?
Sure everyone has an agenda but until all our youth are universally allowed and encouraged to fact find and think for themselves, it will be easy to pull the BS over their eyes and turn them into puppets.
"Big business" sells us deodorized ("refined") vegetable oil because it's cheap and plentiful, NOT because it's healthy for us. I maintain that deodorized vegetable oil should only be used as biodiesel. People who eat less biodiesel are almost always healthier than those who eat more.
The Obesity Epidemic: Evidence of a Crime Against The Public’s Health
Similarly, doctors have been tricked into routinely chemically castrating their patients who don't have smooth menstrual cycles. FDA-approved "Birth Control" prescriptions are said to have "hormones", but the hormone-analogues used as drugs are not the same as nature's hormones. The pills really just shut down women's natural hormone cycling in the brain, replacing it with a medicated cycle.
I've talked to enough women to decide that women eventually hate almost everything about Wall Street's "hormones", but their doctors are ignorant of better options.
Women's Health: A Modern Tragedy
Wall Street simply could not function if it did not have media outlets like Bloomberg spreading ignorance.
He stole it from José Ortega y Gasset...
The mass crushes beneath it everything that is different, everything that is excellent, individual, qualified and select. Anybody who is not like everybody, who does not think like everybody, runs the risk of being eliminated...
He understands that the rise of new technological tools gives a global scope to the unformed opinions of people who, in a previous era, would have only focused on what was nearby and familiar. Above all, he marvels at the fact that the “disdain for science as such is displayed with greatest impunity by the technicians themselves.” Or put differently, skill in manipulating a technology (say, Instagram or the iPhone, in our day) has nothing in common with a zeal for facts and empirical evidence. That shocked Ortega, but we encounter it daily on in the web.
Climate change is a perfect example of ignorance run amok. In fact, the climate change ignorance machine has been so effective that it has convinced a majority of the scientifically illiterate that models that can't reproduce the past known data, somehow can predict future unknown data.
The ignorance machine depends on public outcry about climate change to perpetuate the endless river of funding to produce even more models that can't predict anything.
And 'autonomous cars'. And 'math is too hard, we shouldn't make it a requirement for graduation'. And 'why keep score? It just makes the kids who lose feel bad!'. And 'why learn facts when you have the internet?'. I've been saying for some time now that the gestalt I've been experiencing, is that people are getting dumber, not smarter, and that there are too many 'conveniences' that are just encouraging them to get dumber. But of course the trolls shout me down whenever I say things like that (just like they're likely to do now). Part of that is a movement away from the quest for real truth and real facts, and backwards towards more superstition and mysticism. I've attributed some of this to science and technology moving so much faster than our poor caveman brains can evolve to adapt to, but I've never completely ruled out the possibility of a conscious program of encouraging ignorance as a method of controlling populations, either; as others have remarked it's not like keeping a population as ignorant as possible is a new page in anyones' playbook.
Of course, as always, in addition to the trolls who will shout me down, there will be the commentors who will deny that people are getting dumber. Consider this, though: So-called 'autonomous cars' could create an entire generation that never learns the skill of operating a motor vehicle safely. Although I personally believe that being able to do so is important to one being able to take care of themselves and be independent, what's important here is the learning of a technical skill itself, which driving a car definitely is. Most people don't actually need to use algebra in their day-to-day lives, but being required to learn it shapes your mind in certain ways that is beneficial later in life; both these examples require mental discipline that otherwise you may never be required to develop. Learning the various sciences also has this effect on the mind. Left to their own devices, the vast majority of people will never learn these things, because they are hard; but the conventional wisdom is true: nothing worth doing is ever easy. Now, some of you are still going to point to STEM programs and how they're creating the exact opposite of what I'm claiming. But then I have to say: Why do we need STEM programs in the first place? Because science, technology, engineering, and math aren't being taught and learned enough in regular schools in the first place. We didn't need STEM programs before a certain point; why do we need them now? Because interest in these things is being diverted away. They're trying to treat the symptom rather than the root problem. We don't need to encourage just STEM; we need to encourage the learning of skills of all sorts, and that seeking actual facts and actual truths is a good thing, and that superstition and mysticism in all it's various forms needs to be left behind.
After all, the BBC ought to know all about spreading lies and disinformation.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Philosopher David Hume was writing about the spread of ignorance in the 1700's.. Not sure how this is news.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Such is only possible because an ever smaller section of people had basic education including solid scientific fundamentals or STEM.
Especially those working in mainstream media and at all levels of politics show a near wilful ignorance of science and technology.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
This "study" is massively flawed and is clearly pushing an agenda. How many times does one have to point out to so called "scientists" that correlation does not equal causation? The left wing climate change and evolution propagandists are going to jump on this so hard to push their insane ideologies down the rest of our throats.
See revised subject. I need to do a better job proofreading...
Since the confusion spreading amounts to fraud, these things end up going to court. The trick is to have the liability match the damage. For the tobacco settlement, that probably didn't get there. For the investigation of Exxon and others going on now, it is possible the net worth of the companies involved won't be sufficient to cover the damage.
People with an agenda have been spreading the myth of man-made climate change
Who here thinks that ISPs should use price per GB to fairly share the cost of upgrading the network with those who use it most? Who here thinks that volume caps on mobile data usage are a sound network management strategy? I mean, we're even calling the internet "the cloud" now, because to most people it's just an amorphous blob.
The basic problem is that it is so damn easy to lie with statistics.
People are not generally stupid yet it seems that the majority of people can sincerely hold two conflicting views at the same time. eg. Tobacco kills and "I don't need to worry about its effects on me" or faith vs observed reality or welfare dependency with fiscally conservative views. I'd like to understand how that works because it seems to be part of human nature.
If anything the market seems to be in convincing people that the situation is OK
Nullius in verba
So, you're saying that if someone lacks knowledge and someone else launches a campaign to spread falsified information on the unknown subject, that people will learn the misleading information?
This is not spreading ignorance. This is spreading misinformation. A concept long referred to as propaganda.
Fuck this pretentious douche bag. Perhaps he needs to learn English and what propaganda means. "Ignorance" is intentionally ignoring infromation. Being taught misinfromation is not ignorance.
We don't need no education. Or as some wise guy said: If you don't read, then you are uninformed. If you do read, then you are misinformed. If you can't read, then you are an ignoramus.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
"how people or companies with vested interests spread ignorance and obfuscate knowledge."
Unsaid is the fact government and government officials are equally if not more inclined to this behavior.
By the way years ago I had the pleasure to taking a class from Dr. Proctor. Dr. Proctor and I often differ in our political beliefs but he taught a great class and I have high esteem for him.
Proctor found that ignorance spreads when
1. People are already ignorant ...? ( when special interest groups [...] work hard to create confusion about an issue. )
2.
3. Profit!
BBC complaining about propaganda. Oh, the irony.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Your post is an excellent example of gaslighting!
I don't respond to AC's.
Except for climate science, where any question of the alleged "Consensus" is heresy suitable for burning at the stake.
He wrote a lot on the use of propaganda. And by the way, he was as suspicious of corporations and capitalists, as he was of politicians of all stripes (Fascists and "Communists" alike).
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Pathological science is an area of research where "people are tricked into false results ... by subjective effects, wishful thinking or threshold interactions."
Religion is quite explicitly not a science and deals not in facts, but in beliefs.
No, Science — and Scientists — ought to be judged on their own merits and record. If you must compare scientific disciplines with something, it can only be other scientific disciplines. For example, we know, that Psychology is less reliable than Physics, for example. And that Climate Science is yet to make a prediction, that is both meaningful and correct — indeed, it is already treated as religion by some of the more fervent adherents.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Every so often some group comes out with some "study" that laments how the smart people are being ignored by the dumb people and how civilization will fall because of it. In this particular instance, it's because people aren't buying into the narrative that unless we drastically cut our standard of living, reduce energy consumption, etc. the world will turn into a ball of flame.
When the "dumb" people see through this infantile narrative, the "smart" people get their panties in a bunch and then do a study decrying the "dumb" people.
If you want more evidence of the contrived nature of this exercise, look no further than the conflation of Tobacco companies and so-called "deniers".
Actually, it is accurate in one respect, the Tobacco companies paid billions and billions in penance. The activists got their pound of flesh and declared victory. Yet, tobacco is still legal, is still being sold, and people still use it. So clearly it was all just a huge shakedown.
Further, the Alarmists have come straight and said the entire Climate Change issue is merely a gimmick:
"So what we want to highlight here is that Climate Change is a clear symptom of an unequal and unjust world.
So if we are to address the Climate crisis we need to challenge the structural causes of the crisis which lies on unequal distribution of wealth, of carbon, and of power. Whether it’s political power, economic power, or even military power.”
The origins of computer related religious wars
The essential premise of the book, which Postman extends to the rest of his argument(s), is that "form excludes the content," that is, a particular medium can only sustain a particular level of ideas.
Hiding your data so no one can check your results?
Ironic method of spreading ignorance... to disguise it as fighting ignorance.
BBC = state sponsored propaganda department.
btw, Who defends Tobacco? No one. Nice try trying to get the reader to equate the two by putting them together.
If anyone doesn't know, the goal of all of this is to fight economic growth, climate change is just the excuse.
Do you not find it odd that the alarmists fear both running out of fossil fuels _and_ climate change? They should be celebrating 'peak oil'... but they aren't, because peak oil was just the previous (now contradictory) scare tactic to get people to stop using oil (that they see as fueling growth).
Is it actually warming? It doesn't matter... we run out of fossil fuels in a few decades anyway and Western political consensus can't stop people from burning it all. But for reference the weather can only be predicted a week out using the same crude methods they use to predict climate change... and for **** sake, when have they actually tested their ability to predict climate long term? Never. The situation is entirely novel and they have no idea what is going to happen. And btw, carbon and heat increase plant growth and open up new lands to habitation.
The other question is why aren't these alarmists pro-nuclear energy? Because they don't actually care about carbon emissions... what they care about is fighting growth.
And I know you anti-capitalist bastards are also anti-growth... so remember that this is what you wanted when all of America looks like Detroit and you are fighting roaming packs of dogs for survival!
Governments have as much interest in uncritical ignorance as other interests.....
Can't have "disbelievers" to their propaganda campaigns....
Is nuclear power safe? That's like asking is a car safe, or is an airplane safe. There are many ways to build a car or airplane. When people think of "airplane" they will normally think of a Boeing 747 and not the Wright Flyer. When people think of "car" they will think of what they drive, some iconic car from recent history, but not a car highlighted in Unsafe at Any Speed.
Ask people about nuclear power and often they don't think of the hundreds of nuclear reactors that have operated safely and continue to operate safely, they will think of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, or Fukushima.
Why is that? Why does the mention of nuclear power bring up images of exploding buildings when that is such a rare event?
Could it be that, as the article points out, there is a concerted effort to prevent people from accepting nuclear power as safe? If there is a concerted effort to prevent man made climate change from being accepted by the public then certainly it is possible to believe that there is a similar effort to prevent nuclear power from growing, no?
Give me a minute while I put on my aluminum foil conspiracy theorist helmet....
Oil, natural gas, and coal, are all big business and they will hire people to spread information, and misinformation, to protect that business and I understand that. On the other side we have the big business of government and these people will likewise also spread information, and misinformation, to protect their business. Wind and solar survive on government subsidy, remove that subsidy and those business models collapse. But energy is more than just fossil fuels and "green" energy, we have nuclear power. So you have "big oil" and "big wind" both fighting to keep nuclear power from becoming a viable option in the minds of the public and the policy makers. Should nuclear power gain acceptance then both models are likely to fail.
From this we have a lot of misinformation floating around such as nuclear power is expensive. Nuclear power is expensive only because the government deems it so. The DOE has a habit of revoking permits in the middle of constructing a nuclear power plant. Banks know this risk and so they set a high bar on the issuance of loans to fund the building of a nuclear power plant, such as high interest rates, a requirement for a government backing, and more. That also leads to another myth, that nuclear power plants are so expensive that only a government can fund it.
If the federal government allowed for the issuance of a permit like they do for a $500 million Boeing 747 then we would not need a government backed loan for a $500 million nuclear power plant. Unless the federal government is on the hook for the loan then they have no incentive to see the power plant built, it's not their money. If the loan is not paid back, because the plant was not completed, then the political pressure to revoke the license is much greater as no one has to answer for a half billion dollars disappearing from the budget.
All the other claims on problems of waste, contamination, and other hazards are irrelevant as we don't build nuclear power plants like Fukushima, Three Mile Island, and certainly not like Chernobyl. In fact the only reason nuclear power could be called unsafe today is because we have not built a new nuclear power plant in decades.
We rely on nuclear power right now to keep the lights on. We can build more nuclear power plants, build more coal plants, or cover our ears on the deafening sucking sound that is wind and solar. That sucking sound that is wind and solar will end with a crash as our economy comes falling down or in the unlikely event we get some leap in technology that makes wind and solar viable.
Am I a climate change denier? Yes, and here's why. I conclude that climate change does not pose the threat to society that people claim largely because of the reluctance to embrace nuclear power. These people claim to be "scientific" about how they came to their conclusion and yet ignore the "sc
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Wait... I forgot...... Does Obama dump the screaming new born kids in the fire @ Bohemian Grove during the Cremation of Care Ritual , OR Just the High Priest? Drone The Grove 2016! Yes Grandma, for the last time there will be countless wave after wave of Drones flying above the Bohemian Grove streaming the Cremation of Care Ritual to YouTube and CNN, get over it and take your pills silly...
It's 97% and even that figure is bunk, based on a flawed analysis that excluded the vast majority of studies and then hand-picked through the rest with a bias that even global warming supporters recognize.
This is not FUD, these are open questions that the 97% gloss over:
The heat trapping effects of CO2 -- somewhere between .5 and 2 -- where .5 means a slight warming and 2 means Earth is on a path to become like Venus
The half life of CO2 in the atmosphere -- somewhere between 30 yrs and 1000 yrs -- probably can get 99% with that spread
The availability of new CO2 sinks -- somewhere between none and more than enough -- another tent pole that can fit 99%
The effects of feedbacks -- somewhere between all negative and all positive -- yay consensus science that can mean anything
The skeptics are doing more to answer these questions then the so-called scientists who are busy covering their collective asses because nature hasn't cooperated and produced scary hockey sticks or flooding of coastal regions. Instead they keep floating out new adjustments to produce the warmest year ever even if it is only by a few tenths of a degree and within the error bars.
The funniest thing about all of this is how a few skeptics pointing out the large flaws can produce such vitriol and FUD, of which this paper is just the latest.
Slashdot complaining about the spread of ignorance is like Gary Sandusky (sp) complaining about the exploitation of children, or Hillary Clinton complaining about the collusion of money and power.
Slashdot has been spreading ignorance ever since Cmdr Taco left the helm ohh soo many years ago.
You are to blame for all the ignorance in the universe /.
Ignorance is not finite, nor is it even countable. It truly boggles the mind.
You are describing MDSolar's shtick.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...
The opposite of "knowing" isn't "not knowing". It's "believing".
If you don't know and you want to know, you can learn. But that has some unfortunate blocks in its way. It's quite cumbersome. And arduous. Because "knowing" requires "understanding". And understanding requires you to actually have the relevant knowledge first of all to be able to understand it. It's not possible to understand how a computer works if you have no idea about electrical engineering and mathematics. And understanding them again requires more fundamental work.
Believing is far more appealing. Because you needn't learn, you needn't invest time and energy, you don't even need to think. You only have to accept as true what I tell you.
It's easier. Simple as that.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
My first wife lost 1/2 the month to moodiness caused by her menstrual cycle. When we were no longer married, my readings had a little dietary "tip" for cheaply making women's periods easier. So I called her up, and suggested she give it a try. "I CAN'T EAT RAW VEGETABLES *CLICK*". They make her bloated.
After we talked she realized that she had nothing to lose, and everything to gain. Furthermore, "lunch" I'd proposed was cheaper than what she would otherwise have eaten. A month later she called me back, with tears of joy. Her period had just started, and she wasn't an emotional train wreck. Two or three months later her period snuck up on her, which had never happened before.
There's an old book at one of my state's university libraries whose authors expressed hope that one day menstrual difficulties would be understood, and that we'd learn how to solve these common female problems. Some time in the last 40 years, "science" must have given up. There's a lot of inertia involved in suppressing women's hormone cycles with prescription drugs in perpetuity.
Estradiol is "the heart attack hormone". Inappropriately-high doses of the synthetic estrogen Mestranol is what caused many of the formerly-healthy users of Enovid to drop dead from clotting and heart attacks. Modern birth control pills use smaller amounts of the xeno-estrogen ethinyl estradiol. This drug is more estrogenic than humans' natural estrogens, and is why many woman can only tolerate progestin-only pill formulations.
The notion that the trajectory of climate change is being accurately predicted by practitioners of this 'science' is absurd. The notion that these charlatans can somehow control said change in some beneficial way with global political structures, policies, and taxes (aka socialism) is even more absurd. Anyone who understands control systems understands this.
an ill wind that blows no good
You have to be careful to not confuse the attitudes of people who for whatever reason do not care about an issue with those who simply do not understand it. It is even more difficult when selfish people pretend not to understand in order to not be accused of being selfish. Addressing this significant dynamic would have made the observations more relevant to the real world.
http://www.bbc.com/future/stor...
This is a really insidious example of the information war. Really, really bad. It's part of the campaign to control people who would begin to distrust society in general.
Basically the entire problem of this article is that it keeps repeating the implicit idea that scrutiny belongs within a particular scope and that there is such a thing as "THE TRUTH". It is completely incoherent and comes to no precise conclusion. The article is just an excuse to shoot out a few polarizing phrases to derail rational ('meta') thought. It is meant to confuse people trying to take stock of the situation with the information war. It tries to tranquilize your instinct to find a pattern here by assuring you that there is a branch of OFFICIAL SCIENCE that is combating that dang old problem of people being so fucking stupid.
But how you ask?
It plays wide by getting people to agree with it that smoking causes bad health. Then it fires a scatter shot citing unsupported examples of various events that are implied to be deceptive yet are still implied to have clear explanations (as though that isn't contradictory). It starts playing tight by trying to get people to agree with it that "climate change" is real without defining what climate change is at all or presenting any anecdote or data. Then it just swings. It makes the implication that there is always an 'objectively correct' side to every issue by implying "there are not two sides to every story". Then it broadens out again: "When people do not understand a concept or fact, they are prey for special interest groups who work hard to create confusion". OH WOW you don't say what a revelation. Are you beginning to see the pattern? Pressure, release, pressure, release, but with a consistent underlying force going in one direction - ambiguity.
It puts the cherry on top of the crap sundae by citing the idea that "the internet makes people think they are smarter than they are" without going into any implications, purposely leaving you to think about that in light of the nebulous collection of statements already presented ("Am >>I one of the people who makes mistakes when making up my own mind??")
And then it adds the sprinkles: the politically biased statement. Not necessary to the overall point of the article, but it takes an opportunity to try to influence your view of politics while you are maybe distracted from trying to sort out this nonsense.
The crime is that it proposes that complex matters can be distilled into simple ideas of "true" and "false" for some vague purpose of "understanding". It completely subverts the broad picture that it vaguely implies to address. The question "What do I need to know and why?" That is the antidote to this poison.
"Plenty of science stuff is simply facts and does not need particular proof beyond facts. E.g. that stuff lighter than water swims in water ... no brainers."
So, logically... If she weighs the same as a duck she's made of wood.
And therefore?
Mike Judge got it right.
Serenity now, insanity later.
I have a pet conspiracy theory that the political and business elite in the western world (okay, fine, the United States) engages in activities to keep its population intellectually sedate through its entertainment industry and overly calorie-ridden food (do you really need HFCS in your bread?).
When people get fat and lazy and distracted, they stop caring about things that require effort of thought and people in power can get away with whatever they want.
Doesn't have to just be scientific knowledge that you can spread ignorance about.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
Well that's bollocks, they're human like everyone else, if it turns out their entire branch of physics is bunkum, they'd do everything they could, tell every lie, right every experiment, to preserve THEIR field of expertise and thus their own value.
Science works the same way everything else works, COMPETITION. It's competing scientists that reveal the lies in their competitors.
The danger comes when a lie has stood unchallenged for a long time, because then that field of science consists of people who are trained in the lie and thus you don't get any qualified people in the field who haven't been taught the lie and accepted it in order to get their degree. Quantum Physics being the case in point.
So true! "Green" politicians, renewable energy companies looking for investments and government funding, scientists eager for grants and public exposure, journalists looking for sensationalist articles, and non-profits looking for funding and donations have all been spreading ignorance about climate change.
According to this article...
So we shouldn't question CAGW? (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming)
www.wattsupwiththat.com
www.climatedepot.com
Given the replication rate in sciences like psychology, the lack of error bars in sciences like "climate science", coupled with the massive institutional financial pressures to do the government's bidding, it strikes me that the direction of ignorance is all one way.
Until we find some way to make the repercussions of this type of activity so unpalatable that no one is willing to, this will always be one of the favorite arrows in the quiver of the socio/economic elite to help maintain their strangle hold on the people. Whats really sad is that we are on the verge of curing old age, and yet we still cannot shed the shackles of oppression forged thousands of years ago.
Feminism in a nutshell. Well, the modern incarnation of it, using dubiously worded studies as 'proof' that certain issues are overwhelming.
Enshrine ignorance to keep the masses stupid and keep them entertained (reality TV, sports, gambling, alcohol, pot) while the powers that be work to turn them into little more than expendable slaves.
There is no such thing as true freedom...it is an illusion.
Freedom of speech only works until the powers that be sue you into silence.
Freedom of religion only works so long as it's in the best interest of the powers that be.
Freedom of the press only works until all of the press is owned by the powers that be.
We're getting closer and closer to the tipping point.
I am 55. Ever since first-grade, I have noticed how the Republicans have been consistently trying to destroy the public education system. Reducing funding to the point where teachers were forced to spend their own money for classroom supplies. Then reducing effective salaries for teachers (but not administrators) to the point where the teachers couldn't afford to buy the supplies at all. Then imposing testing requirements that cover material that is NOT a good measure of educational achievement. Then vilifying those teachers from whom all freedom to teach has been stripped. All the while, bitching and moaning about how kids in other countries are doing better on standardised tests, but then sending jobs to the countries where the education is far, FAR worse than ours....
All in an attempt to create an electorate ignorant enough to believe any and every fallacious, emotion-based argument they use to cover for the fact that all they are really doing is helping big business and the filthy-rich take even more money at the expense of the people and the environment.
Now, the Repulicans have created an electorate so assininely stupid that they are voting, in droves, for someone who is so mind-bogglingly, insane, ignorant, and assinine that even the GOP can't stand him.
So, yes, the Republicans have created a Frankenstein's monster of an electorate, composed of all the worst parts of society and now they will have to deal with the destruction said monster will visit upon them.
In some ways, I hope we do end up with King Trump. After he shows himself to be such a meglomaniacle jackass that even France is ready to go to war with us. After the 1% get reduced to the .001% and the top 1 to .001 % end up having to take service jobs, cleaning the toe-nails of the top .001%. After Kim Jong Ill buys the last Trump Tower. And after both parties unanimously vote to impeach the fucker but the ignorant and radicalized military refuse to unseat their "One True Leader" (I was in the military, so I have seen both how ignorant most of them are and how little respect they have for the population they are supposedly there to serve. Most of them would happily follow the most criminal of orders if given by someone like Trump.) Only then will this country wake up and realize that promoting assinine ignorance is maybe not such a good thing.
Aren't you glad our government never does that?
Those that have few morals and have a vested interest in something will try to misdirect people, and those with lower intelligence are more likely to fall for it...
Did I get that right? I am sure pretty much anyone could have deduced that.
Trump! Need I say more?!
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_asymmetry
Casteism
In The China Study, the authors discuss ways in which nutrition science is riddled with conflict of interest. They say the food industry treats nutrition science as a marketing channel, and is largely able to neutralize negative messages about its products by controlling the direction of research and/or generating conflicting and confusing messages. Meanwhile, for example, some physicians personally seek dietary treatment for cardiovascular disease but still support a medical institution that prefers to recommend surgical intervention.
The term agnotology is an interesting one. Could be a real thing.
Sounds like the Hillary Clinton campaign!