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.'

Comments

Nothing new

[Hognoxious]

This has been going on for 6,000 years.

Re:Nothing new

[Anonymous Coward]

It's literally as old as the Earth!

Re:Nothing new

[smooth wombat]

The key quote from his article, and one that I found at some point in the past:

Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' -- Isaac Asimov

Re:Nothing new

[haggie]

It's been happening since the first human rode a dinosaur!

Re:Nothing new

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a difference between ignorance and stupidity. The article is not talking about stupid people, i.e. willfully ignorant people. Ignorance is simply the lack of knowing, which is what many people and many scientists make as mistakes, which are far more forgivable. What is truly egregious are those spreading misinformation to create ignorance. Scientists often change their position based upon the facts, this isn't ignorance, it's learning. Religion is willfully pushing people to do things known to be harmful to themselves or other around for a perceived payoff in some unproven state that comes after known life, which is why it is called faith. Religion is simply willful ignorance in the belief of something else. While it obviously did not start out as such, the lack of adaptability of many major religions shows that there is no rigor, and the belief system itself is built more on dogma or the people that make up the religion. Even modern religions such as Mormonism struggle with this, where many of the facts are known. Please don't confuse the willful ignorance and stupidity of some religion with the uninformed ignorance of science.

Re:Nothing new

[AmiMoJo]

I attribute it to the increasing use of "frame", first by politicians and political commentators and now by everyone. Figure out how you want to frame an argument and then keep pushing it, tasking about it only in terms of that frame and ignoring everyone else.

It's an effective technique because it makes it impossible to have any meaningful debate or argument. A lot like Newspeak, it prevents people from even discussing the issue in terms that don't fit your frame. It also polarizes groups, especially when combined with some good old fashioned demonizing of the enemy.

Welfare, fairness, taxation, feminism, gun control, foreign policy, men's issues, immigration, the EU... All have become poisoned by this particularly destructive kind of spin.

Re:Nothing new

[kanweg]

"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

Re:Nothing new

[flyingfsck]

Wrong. Scientists are happy to admit when they are wrong. Descartes' scientific method relies on setting up an enquiry that can be falsified.

Re:Nothing new

[alvinrod]

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.

Re:Nothing new

[religionofpeas]

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.

Doesn't help to have fertile ground

[dlenmn]

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.

Re:Gaslighting and other cons

[serviscope_minor]

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.

The Disinformation Age and Foolage

[pipingguy]

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

Re:Windows 10

[amiga3D]

Those kinds of lies and propaganda are called advertising.

Re:Gaslighting and other cons

[Layzej]

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?...

Re:Modern charlatans turn ignorance into profits

[Sique]

I don't know what your issue is with the pill. Everybody who has even the slightest idea about birth control knows that the pill works by disrupting the natural hormone cycling. Heightened estradiol-levels in the blood caused by the pill affect the pituitary gland not to produce follicle-stimulating hormone, and thus, no follicle lets an egg cell ripe. That's why it causes women not to become pregnant. And hey, that's the whole concept behind the pill in the first place!

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.

Re:Hmmm

[MobyDisk]

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?

Re:Hmmm

[serviscope_minor]

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.

Re:Questioning

[ArmoredDragon]

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.

Re:Questioning

[religionofpeas]

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.

Re:Gaslighting and other cons

[religionofpeas]

A little bit of doubt can be very effective for those people already looking for it.

Re:Questioning

[Ol Olsoc]

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.

Re:A lack of credibility.

[blindseer]

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?