Whatever knowledge we have is grounded in probabilities. What is the likelihood that carbon emissions lead to climate change? Does cigarette smoking causes lung cancer? Do immunizations prevent disease?
The merchants of doubt say we don’t know, we can’t be sure, we could be wrong, the evidence is suspect, we need more research.
Merchants of Doubt, a film made from the book of the same title, depicts the efforts to sow confusion and skepticism about the scientific research on these questions. Most of these efforts are corporate financed public relations campaigns designed to confuse the public.
Lies are spread, so is dishonesty and deception. The men and women who engage in these efforts couldn’t care less. They have a job, the untruths they spread are part of the deal.
Of course, there is always the question of who does and does not succumb to their playbook, the effects of their deceptions. Not everyone, that is for sure, but enough to block widespread acceptance of the research.
The same sort of doubts about research evidence has also characterized recent proposals of certain Presidential candidates. James Surowiecki calls them instances of “magical thinking.” (New Yorker 3/21/16). In particular, he discusses Donald Trump’s proposals to “slash taxes.”
He says Trump’s plan would reduce revenues by more than nine trillion dollars (can you can imagine such a number?) over the next decade. At the same time, he has promised to balance the budget and not cut services such as Social Security and Medicare.
How does he imagine he can do that? Surowiecki says he will get rid of government “waste and fraud and abuse…abolish the Department of Education and the Environmental Protection Agency” and that the tax cuts would stimulate the economy so that government revenues will increase.
This claim is contrary to all the current evidence. Surowiecki writes: “The message has been fact-checked and refuted over and over again, but once something becomes an article of political faith, it’s difficult to dislodge.”
This is the same sort of misperception that characterizes the beliefs discussed in the film Merchants of Doubt. All you have to do is make the claim, spread doubt and once they are in the public domain, they’re very difficult to overcome, in spite of all the contrary evidence, most of which is discounted or more likely ignored and unknown.
14 comments:
During the course of my reading the blog post about the film “Merchants of Doubt” I was reminded of another blog post that I recently read – “The Unbearable Asymmetry Of Bullshit”,
http://quillette.com/2016/02/15/the-unbearable-asymmetry-of-bullshit/
I wonder if, and to what extent, the appropriateness of questioning of scientific claims suggested in “The Unbearable Asymmetry of Bullshit” would support, or undermine, the conclusory criticisms of corporate representations contained in the “Merchants of Doubt”?
“Merchants of Doubt” criticisms of corporate representations –
Among the criticisms the “Merchants of Doubt” leveled against corporate questioning of scientific conclusions asserted by corporate critics of the “Merchants of Doubt” are the following:
• Most of these efforts are corporate financed public relations campaigns designed to confuse the public.
• Lies are spread, so is dishonesty and deception. The men and women who engage in these efforts couldn’t care less.
“The Unbearable Asymmetry of Bullshit” criticism of asserted scientific conclusions –
The following passages in “The Unbearable Asymmetry of Bullshit cause me to wonder if and to what extent the blanket general assertions contained in “Merchants of Doubt” against corporations might themselves be subject to much of the same criticism and accusations of deception as the “Merchants of Doubt” leveled against corporate representations:
• science is flawed. And scientists are people too.
• not therefore immune from human foibles
• The most careful scientists, and the best science journalists, realize that all science is provisional. There will always be things that we haven’t figured out yet,
• They have cognitive and emotional limitations, not to mention biases, like everyone else.
• if you love science, you had better question it, and question it well,
Dishonesty & deception engaged in by both sides? –
I wonder if, and to what degree, there may be some degree of dishonesty and deception in the actions and representations made by both the corporate interests and the critics of the corporate interest, as each side seeks to convince the public of the merits of their views?
So that we, the public, are subject to efforts being made by both sides to try to convince us to choose sides based upon our emotions, rather than based upon an open-minded independent rational review of the relevant information?
Something to think about.
I watched this film and thought it was/is excellent. Unfortunately, as your post indicates, it preaches to the choir. I have recent personal experience of this with a very good friend, whom I at least persuaded to watch it. But, once a mind has closed, it tends to remain closed.
Which brings me to a larger question - once the misperception is entrenched, how can it be dislodged? I suppose it can't ever be done completely, but at least enough to enable a government to legislate and act based on facts rather than the misperception? Maybe it's a very slow process, a drip, drip, drip of accumulating evidence? How long did the Catholic church suppress Galileo's findings on the earth's orbiting around the sun? I don't know, but that knowledge seems to be universally accepted today (isn't it?).
And what does one do when an otherwise pleasant, long-term friendship becomes very tense when the parties, knowing better, allow discussion to drift into "mutually forbidden" subjects? Is it true friendship?
These unanswered questions drive me crazy!!
Dom:
It is of course true that some scientific research is flawed, subject to experimenter bias and on occasion deceptive. But science can be corrected, research findings can be replicated if they are true or falsified if they are not. Replication is essential to the research enterprise. And often the attempts to replicate fail. It's the weight of the evidence that must be invoked at any given time.
I don't think the scientific enterprise can be characterized by the same degree of "dishonesty and deception" that is employed by the merchants of doubt. Their efforts are knowingly and commonly false but that is extremely rare in scientific studies.
Efforts to disprove the claims of the merchants of doubt run into the same problems I noted in my post, namely, once an false idea is in the "public domain, they’re very difficult to overcome, in spite of all the contrary evidence, most of which is discounted or more likely ignored and unknown."
I hope I have grappled with your comments, comments that I very much appreciate.
Richard
Take hear Linda.. There is at least one question that can be answered unequivocally answered. The earth does rotate around the sun: "As the Earth rotates, it also moves, or revolves, around the Sun. The Earth's path around the Sun is called its orbit. It takes the Earth one year, or 365 1/4 days, to completely orbit the Sun. As the Earth orbits the Sun, the Moon orbits the Earth."
There is no more vexing question than how to most effectively change an entrenched belief? Others include how to change an entrenched habit, one of your own or someone else?
There are many efforts to address this question, mostly in social psychology, but two numerous to mention here. Some work, some don't, some depend on the nature of the habit or belief. Start with how to change a long standing habit you have. That might help to see what works or doesn't.
Richard
Linda: Sorry for all the obvious typos and errors. I was typing rapidly. Take heart, not hear. Answered unequivocally. Sorry, again. Richard
I am taking heart, Richard - thank you :)
Linda:
See Chapter 10 in The Observer. It deals with one of the questions that is driving you crazy. If it doesn't cure your ailment, please let me know.
Richard
Linda, your interesting question, “… once the misperception is entrenched, how can it be dislodged?” causes me to wonder –
As society has evolved over the course of history to the present day, have there been any changes in the ease or difficulty with which the average person’s perceptions have been changeable, based upon that person perceiving changing circumstances?
For example, as society has become more educated does the increase in education cause people to be more or less willing to change their perceptions and opinions?
As society has become more affluent, does such increase in affluence cause people to be more or less willing to change their perceptions and opinions?
Richard, in response to your comment: “I don't think the scientific enterprise can be characterized by the same degree of "dishonesty and deception" that is employed by the merchants of doubt. Their efforts are knowingly and commonly false but that is extremely rare in scientific studies” –
I agree that overall the average scientist’s scientific assertions are more credible than that of the average businessperson.
However, my perception, and experience, is that at times the opinions and conclusions of scientists are misrepresented to the public by both business advocates and non-business advocates – not just the business advocates.
For example, a number of occasions where I have read articles criticizing and attacking businesses and basing those criticisms and attacks upon some specific stated authority, such as an independent report, and I have obtained and read a copy of such report, only to find out that report did not in fact support a significant portion of the non-business advocate’s criticisms and attacks.
As a result, I would disagree with the accuracy and appropriateness of any film, or other publication, presenting disputes between business and non-business interests in “black and white”.
My perception is that the likelihood of, and the magnitude of, efforts to mislead, confuse, lie, and deceive is, on the average (X) in the case of businesses, directly related to the amount of profits involved, and (Y) in the case of non-business advocates, directly related to the amount of emotion, rather than rationality, involved.
It would be interesting to know if there have been any independent studies done assessing the comparative level of misrepresentation contained in communications to the public from business versus non-business parties, with the disputes involved both (X) substantial levels of business profits and (Y) strong emotions of the non-business critics.
Dom: I have forward your comment to Linda. As for me, I feel your questions do not readily lend themselves to empirical analysis. Speculation is the best we or any historian can do. I see no reason to believe that neither education nor affluence leads people (here I refer to the population at large) to more readily change entrenched habits or beliefs. Richard
Dom: I thoroughly agree with the first part of your comments. To go to the original source of a claim about scientific research is rare. I commend you for doing that. In doing so, you've noticed how easily it can be to misrepresent those findings under the guise of simply citing them. As for you additional two questions, once again I know of no investigations of the role of profit motive on strength of emotion on misrepresentation. Of course, my knowledge is limited, very limited. Is it possible to design such studies, namely are they testable? Or are conjectures the best we can do? Richard
In answer to Dom's questions, I can only speculate based on observation, reading, and experience: I observe quite a large number of wealthy people out there who are, in my humble opinion, completely wrong-headed and/or magical thinkers about such things as climate change, efficacy of vaccinations, evolution, etc., etc. I also believe that education is our best hope for leading each other out of entrenched misperceptions by exposing us to the rigors of rational and critical thinking. I believe it because education has had that effect on me.
Postscript:
The issue of how to change firmly held beliefs has arisen in this discussion. There are a few attempts to confront this matter on the blog. See:
http://marksinthemargin.blogspot.com/search/label/Change
I've heard of the book, didn't know it was made into a movie. Perhaps The Donald thinks that if he yells "You're fired" at all the government employees he'll get a big budget savings. As for services, they will all be self-service.
Post a Comment