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."
You are the poster child of the OP.
Tell us about the Illuminati Space Alien UN Bankers and their Sputnik mind control lasers.
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 problem has never been that the public disagrees that "smoking is bad for you".
Speaking of gaslighting... it would be nice if you didn't just reinvent history to make a point.
Likewise for climate change as the current cause celebre - It's the solutions, again, being demanded.
Ana again with the gaslighting. No, plenty of people are flat-out denying the science and ignoring the evidence. All you have to do is visit a slashdot thread on global warming/climate change to see this.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
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
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.
Those kinds of lies and propaganda are called advertising.
why did he use a religious term of "denier" to explain people that doubt climate change is as dire as some report?
Because (a) it's not a religious term and (b) 99.9% of them are actual genuine deniers who do not have the background, knowledge or training to make any kind of informed judgement and are flat-out denying the science for ideological reasons, or just sheer ignorance.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
The problem has never been that the public disagrees that "smoking is bad for you"
Congressional testimony: "I believe that nicotine is not addictive" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
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.
why did he use a religious term of "denier"
Virtue signaling and to establish his tribal identity, same reason everyone else says it. If you look into it, you'll probably find that "ignorance" is really more a tribal identity concept to these people rather than anything about knowledge. Their tribe is the one that follows "the good beliefs" vs. the other tribes who are "ignorant" of them.
The key is that the tribes have to be divided and the other tribe is always a dangerous threat. So you must support and empower and enrich your tribal leaders as much as you can, to fight off the other.
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?
Wind mills have been generating weirdos for centuries. Cervantes wrote his books in 1605 already and people are still tilting at wind mills.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Their tribe is the one that follows "the good beliefs" vs. the other tribes who are "ignorant" of them.
This post is not insightful. No, there are *not* two sides to every story. And not everything is about tribal identities. If you believe so, then you should put scare quotes about "good beliefs" when someone asserts the earth is approximately spherical and scare quotes about "ignorance" based on what they say about flat earthers.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Mmm. Looking at the odds, Cruz takes the Republican nomination in a contested election, Hillary beats Sanders 51% to 49% and Trump/Sanders goes on to beat Hillary and Cruz in a massive write-in landslide in the general election.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Well, it is a mistake to use consensus as validation when it comes to anything. After Einstein's theory of relativity came about, somebody published a work titled "100 authors against Einstein" that was trying to "disprove" relativity by means of scientific consensus. Einstein correctly pointed out that it should only take one of them to prove him wrong.
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.
A little bit of doubt can be very effective for those people already looking for it.
Consensus is an important part of science, but it is not the only part. The scientific method is strong enough that the truth eventually prevails even if the current consensus is wrong (such as for your Einstein example). People who spread ignorance use the fact that consensus is not always correct to disregard it whenever it disagrees with their point of view. Hence "teach the controversy".
Very well said.
"Global cooling", oops, now called "Global warming", oops, now called "Climate Change", is, in truth, just the latest Apocalyptic The Gods Are Angry End Of The World Unless We Repent Cult. There's a new such cult every few generations complete with sinners (climate change deniers), purchasing external signs of righteousness and piety (Prius cars as an example), the ability to sin at will by buying forgiveness from the gods (carbon credits), outlawing sins against the gods (banning plastic bags for example), large visible tributes to the gods to show our piety as a social group (huge wind power projects as an example), and most of all a uniting of the ruling and clergy class (politicians and "scientists") to strip the people of their wealth in sacrifices (taxes) to conduct ceremonies and make offerings to the gods to appease them. Human nature is simply human nature and does not change appreciably over thousands of years. These behaviors have made the elites rich through all of human history and the average human alive today is no more wiser about the manipulation the an ancient Egyptian making an offering to a priest to help make sure the Nike flooded again this year to make the soil fertile.
Utterly false. A bunch of examples in Collapse by Jared Diamond. Can you put an example of your "loss of will" nonsense?
Odd. Especially considering that Germany was aiming for self-sufficiency during that time and it had a pretty decent car industry even back then. Yet nobody tried to make car (and tank) fuel out of alcohol. Even when the Nazis came to power, they were aiming for coal and wood gas generators rather than alcohol as fuel, and believe me that one, getting rid of that dependency on oil (which was hard to come by for them) was one of the key research topics during that time.
Strikes me as odd.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Except for climate science, where any question of the alleged "Consensus" is heresy suitable for burning at the stake.
So how many people have been burnt at the stake for being a denier?
Now if you mean simple ridicule, hell yeah, just that same as people who believe that the earth was created in 4004 b.c.e, or that all life was created at once in it's present form.
Or that the earth is flat.
You are entitled to your own beliefs. You are not entitled to your own facts. It is getting very difficult to be a denier these days without joinng the camp of the others I just posted. When even Exxon confirms the physics - even if they lied about them, when even the patron saint of the deniers and his one time discrepancies becoming in line with the other data and him as co-author of an article saying just that - there isn't much room left on that limb of denial you are perched on.
What is it you have left? Calling Michael Mann an asshole? Sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling neener, neener, I can't HEAR YOUUUUU!
Not much, is it? Michael Mann isn't an asshole, and the laws of physics don't care how loud you yell. Carry on.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
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.
Tobacco doesn't cause cancer either. As the Simpsons prove, it is Democrats https://www.youtube.com/watch?... (at 1:38 mark)
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Other countries are acting and changing their policies, for example Germany.
Is that the same Germany that is replacing clean nuclear power with brown coal power? The same Germany that has some of the highest electricity prices in Europe and buys as much power as it can from nuclear powered France?
Even China is beginning to invest heavily into renewable energy.
Yes, the same China that intends to double current nuclear power capacity in two years and then double it again two years later.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It's mostly the US with a republican dominated congress and their policy of denial that is doing business as usual. And many developing countries won't even think about going environmentally friendly as long as the US doesn't take the lead.
Tell me, what political party is in charge of the executive branch? Are licenses for nuclear reactors issued by Congress or by the executive?
Read the two party platforms and tell me which one gives nuclear power the best chance of growth?
Is it the RNC?
https://www.gop.com/platform/a...
Nuclear energy, now generating about 20 percent of our electricity through 104 power plants, must be expanded. No new nuclear generating plants have been licensed and constructed for thirty years. We call for timely processing of new reactor applications currently pending at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The federal governmentâ(TM)s failure to address the storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel has left huge bills for States and taxpayers. Our country needs a more proactive approach to managing spent nuclear fuel, including through developing advanced reprocessing technologies.
Or is it the DNC?
https://www.democrats.org/part...
That means an all-of-the-above approach to developing America's many energy resources, including wind, solar, biofuels, geothermal, hydropower, nuclear, oil, clean coal, and natural gas.
Wow, of the entire Democrat platform document nuclear energy gets a mention in one sentence. I did however see a lot of mention of preventing nuclear proliferation. No mention of building new reactors that I could see. They did seem concerned about the amount of nuclear weapon material and the desire to destroy it. Tell me, what methods would those be besides using that material as fuel in a nuclear reactor? Would not the desire to destroy nuclear weapons coincide with expanded nuclear energy? Then why be silent on using this material as fuel? I can only conclude it is because they have no intent to see this nuclear material as fuel. They will likely down blend it with natural uranium and bury it in steel drums somewhere in the desert. Which is fine I suppose. When the Republicans get into power at some future date then it can be dug back up.
The Republicans have a majority in both houses but a 54% majority in the Senate allows for all kinds of methods to hold up bills. A lack of a sympathetic POTUS means vetoes and lots of them.
Democrats held both houses of the 111th Congress and the White House, why didn't we see a nuclear power renaissance then?
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Funny how you extreme-rightwingers can always quote that number - but have no idea what capitalism's death toll is, and how you ignore that where socialism was achieved democratically rather than through revolution (i.e. most of the world) - it's death toll is lower than where capitalism is achieved democratically. You also utterly ignore that where capitalism is achieved *without* democracy - it's death toll is worse. Citing big numbers without context is a great way to sound scary while saying nothing at all.
100-Million out of how many ? Over how many years ? You need both time and per-capita measures to actually *compare* anything. Pinochet killed at least 40-thousand people in his first 2 years in office - and he was a hardcore capitalist.
So clearly the system of government is a much bigger factor than the economic system in determining how many people the government kills. In the meantime, today, the world's greatest bastion of capitalism is also one of the last bastions of the death penalty in the developed world while the democratic socialist countries have all done away with it - often decades ago, meaning that capitalism has killed more people *just* in America in the past 30 years than socialism has killed globally !
And of course, if you're really going to compare death tolls of economic systems you should count every preventable death within them. Everybody who has ever starved because he was underpaid or couldn't find work and capitalism didn't provide a social safety net (that's a socialist idea). Everybody who ever died because the boss skimped on a critical safety feature in the factory to increase profits (that's easily topping your 100-million all by itself about once a decade - hell *just* goldmines are killing *at least* 3000 people per year - for the most capitalist purpose of all - to stick bars of metal in vaults and never use them for anything), everyone who ever died because they got a curable disease and couldn't afford the medical care they needed to survive. For fairness - you could limit it to the century between 1910 and 2010 - since the Soviet Union sort of began in 1910 and including the Industrial era before that is a number we have nothing to compare with.
Hell you could go as far as to conclude that the extreme death toll of 19th century capitalism, it's rabid exploitation of the poor and the horrible treatment of workers were the *reason* that revolutionary Bolshevist states arose in the first place. Which means that the entire 100-million you cite was *actually* killed by unregulated capitalism, since if the markets (especially labor) had been properly regulated in the 19th century and not had bred all that terrible poverty and suffering the Russian revolution would never have happened.
When you inform your ideas with simplistic big-numbers you get stupid conclusions. Now I'm not saying you should be pro-socialism or pro-mixed-economy or pro-capitalism or pro-something-else-entirely(yes there a literally thousands of economic philosophies in the world that are neither capitalism nor socialism). What I am saying is you ought to base your decision, and what ideas you support based on a careful and analytical consideration of all relevant facts, not some scary big number with no context to give it meaning.
To hammer the point home. Last year the South African AIDS death toll was a frightening 200-thousand people (and considering most of them were just too poor to buy good drugs - you can chalk that up to "killed by capitalism" by the way). That's a big frightening number eh ? Well, no, actually - it was 4 times that much in 2010. The number is proof that South Africa is *winning* the war against AIDs. That it's still so big means we have a lot of work left to do and the war is far from over and nobody denies that, but it does prove our strategies are working. See the point ? Numbers without context is a way to tell lies and decieve people while appearing to tell the truth. Abandon the lie - read a bit wider - and form an informed opinion. You may
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *