[Lex Computer & Tech Group/LCTG] science

Fri Jul 29 10:51:30 PDT 2022

Jon and Frank,

Check out “The Triumph of Doubt” by David Michaels too.  Together they make a kind of “doubt” trilogy.  These are all examples of how the “bad faith”, pseudo-scientific arguments they report on are designed not to refute, educate or convince readers but primarily to create doubt, to confuse the public conversation, and to undermine their faith in institutions, vital institutions we depend on as a society.

“Dark Money” by Jane Mayer is an excellent, thoroughly researched and footnoted account of how these highly visible and oft cited individuals in opposition to experts — apparently organic, populist and unorganized — are actually thoroughly organized and funded.  They have been with us a long, long time.

And as you observe, Jon, all of these attacks on science are absolutely connected to attacks on the public health case against tobacco.  In some cases, it’s even the same individuals.  

NB:  I’m NOT saying that science is “true.”  I AM saying that science tends to work in the sense that it explains and predicts outcomes reasonably well.  Until it doesn’t.  And those observations that don’t fit the models are precisely what drives science forward, correcting itself of past errors.  And I also AM saying that “good faith” criticism of science happens ALL THE TIME in the scientific literature while “bad faith” arguments are excluded NOT because they are critical of establishment views but because they aren’t governed by “good faith” rules of debate.

Here are some of the warning signs I’ve learned to see that are indicators of “bad faith” argumentation using tobacco as an example.
1) The science on the dangers of tobacco is uncertain.  There is doubt.  Don’t trust it.  It’s "fake" news.
2) Even if the science is true, the dangers are not that bad.
3) Everyone does it, and mostly everyone seems ok.  My uncle smoked two packs a day and lived until he was 92.

Notice that if number 1 is true, changing the subject to numbers 2 or 3 is a rhetorical technique to avoid counter arguments to number 1.  And furthermore, NONE of these arguments are about what should be done as a society, which of course, is a matter of opinion, politics, and values, not science.  In my view, it’s possible to agree on the science that demonstrates the harm of smoking and continue to oppose regulation.  That’s precisely what our political system was designed to do:  to figure out what to DO in response to a common threat or opportunity when we disagree.  Instead, these arguments are simply designed to poison the public conversation and short-circuit the process.  

Unfortunately, the collateral damage to our institutions including our media, schools, communities and religious institutions simply accumulates.  Over time, many of us give up and insist that “everyone is lying” and we “can’t trust anybody.”  This is the biggest lie of all.  And it’s sad.  For the time being, there ARE still people we can trust in, it’s just harder than ever to find them in the noise.  Can you see how these arguments undermine institutions, especially when propagated by our leaders?  Our American “show me” attitudes along with our confidence in ourselves, our culture, our work, our markets — historically buttressed with a healthy dose of skepticism — has been replaced by a dominant strain of nihilistic cynicism.  

And lest anyone take offense on this list, I’m surely NOT accusing anyone here of malevolence or bad faith here.  I know many, many smart and well intentioned individuals who pick up and propagate these deceptive arguments against establishment climate science because they sound so powerful and are so compelling.  I AM saying IN THIS CASE, however, that my respected friends and colleagues who do with with climate science are being lied to and manipulated by a very well funded and managed, anti-science propaganda campaign.  If they’re going to be skeptical of establishment experts, they ought to be at LEAST as skeptical of the anti-establishment skeptics themselves.

I tell my cynical friends they shouldn’t really use their imagination to figure out if the attacks on the scientific establishment are true or false.  Sure, the atmosphere and oceans seem really, really big.  What’s a few inches of sea level a century?  Or a few million tons of CO2?  But instead of imagining what could be wrong with predictions that seem so scary, so dire and so urgent, I urge them to read the science.  The climate change debate has raged for 60 years or so, with generations of skeptics INSIDE the community of climate science.  They should study HOW exactly consensus has emerged.  I tell them they’ll be surprised with the integrity of the individuals involved, especially the skeptics such as Kerry Emanuel, a Reagan Republican from MIT.  As far as I can tell every one of the points raised against the science of climate change are not “alternative facts” at all but have either been incorporated into the science or studied and refuted by the science, INCLUDING the uncertainty that the manufacture of doubt is constructed on.  It’s built in.

SQ

> On Jul 28, 2022, at 6:13 PM, Jon Dreyer <jon at jondreyer.org> wrote:
> 
> I think I can compete with Frank in terms of lack of expertise on climate, but coincidentally I just read the article The Weaponization Of Doubt <https://www.deseret.com/2022/7/27/23170209/the-weaponization-of-doubt-misinformation-disinformation-democracy-information-doubt> by my friend, author and philosopher of science Lee McIntyre <https://leemcintyrebooks.com/>, about the growing spread of disinformation (as distinguished from mere unintentional misinformation). It's worth a read, but a big idea is that doubt is increasingly being used as a weapon to discredit "inconvenient truths". The article references Oreskes and Conway's book Merchants of Doubt, <https://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/> which details the weaponization of doubt with respect to tobacco, acid rain, the ozone hole, global warming, and DDT. One tool we can use to evaluate information is the same one that's been used since antiquity to help solve crimes: Cui bono?
> 
> On 7/28/22 5:51 PM, Frank Gens wrote:
>> I’m probably the least expert on this email chain, but since I’ve invested time in reading it, I’d like to share my gut reaction to reading the arguments against the growing reality of climate change…
>> 
>> It reminds me of this similar-toned 1950 ad campaign from Reynolds Tobacco…
> -- 
> Jon Dreyer
> Math Tutor/Compuer Science Tutor <http://www.passionatelycurious.com/>
> Jon Dreyer Music <http://music.jondreyer.com/>===============================================
> ::The Lexington Computer and Technology Group Mailing List::
> Reply goes to sender only; Reply All to send to list.
> Send to the list: LCTG at lists.toku.us      Message archives: http://lists.toku.us/private.cgi/lctg-toku.us
> To subscribe: email lctg-subscribe at toku.us  To unsubscribe: email lctg-unsubscribe at toku.us
> Future and Past meeting information: http://LCTG.toku.us
> List information: http://lists.toku.us/listinfo.cgi/lctg-toku.us
> This message was sent to stefanoq at gmail.com.
> Set your list options: http://lists.toku.us/options.cgi/lctg-toku.us/stefanoq@gmail.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.toku.us/pipermail/lctg-toku.us/attachments/20220729/cb575dba/attachment.html>