Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Spread of Ignorance (bbc.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the blissful-Muggles dept.

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.'

14 of 416 comments (clear)

  1. Nothing new by Hognoxious · · Score: 5, Funny

    This has been going on for 6,000 years.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:Nothing new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's literally as old as the Earth!

    2. Re:Nothing new by haggie · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    3. Re:Nothing new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    4. Re:Nothing new by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:Nothing new by kanweg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "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

    6. Re:Nothing new by alvinrod · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re:Nothing new by religionofpeas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  2. Doesn't help to have fertile ground by dlenmn · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  3. Re:Gaslighting and other cons by Layzej · · Score: 5, Informative

    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?...

  4. Re:Modern charlatans turn ignorance into profits by Sique · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  5. Re:Hmmm by MobyDisk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  6. Re:Questioning by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  7. Re:Questioning by religionofpeas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.