How Conspiracies and Science Denial have Been Weaponized by the Fossil Fuel Oligarchs
We’re living in a world of post-science and post-fact, in large part because, for 40 years, the long term project of the fossil fuel industry, and, critically, those authoritarian states that rely on fossil fuels to maintain their power, has been to degrade society’s respect for science as a source of guidance, and indeed, the very idea that there are facts that can be established, and that should guide good governance. The goal is to reset subservience to raw power and wealth as the magnetic north for all politics.
Science denialism permeates society. Though adamant anti-vaxxers and resolute flat Earthers may be small in numbers, many more people in the United States deny climate change and/or evolution (at least 50% and 33%, respectively). And while scientists face public denial of well-supported theories, popular culture celebrates pseudoscience: Olympic athletes engage in cupping, “gluten-free” is trending (even among those without disorders like celiac disease), and unsubstantiated alternative medicine methods flour-ish with support from cultural icons like Oprah. Governments face furious opposition to fluoridated water (when it was added to prevent tooth decay), and popular restaurant chains, like Chipotle, proudly tout their opposition to genetically modified organisms (GMOs) (see https://www.chipotle.com/gmo; scientists stress that the focus should be on the risks and benefits of each specific product and not globally accepted or rejected based on the processes used to make them).
Moreover, the emergence of social media has pro- vided a broad forum for the famous, not famous, and infamous alike to share and crowdsource opinions and even target misinformation to those who are most vulnerable. This allows so-called fake news to go viral. Yet who is most susceptible to denying science and/or believing misinformation? In the current study, we consider the extent to which conspiracy mentality leads people to (a) reject well-supported scientific theories and (b) accept viral and deceptive claims (commonly referred to as fake news) about science, two ways in which publics disagree with scientists.
Why are there such gaps between what scientists have shown and what lay publics believe? One of the original models attempting to answer this question, the public deficit model, poses that science denialism is fueled by a lack of science knowledge. In other words, if people simply understood the science, then they would accept the science. This model, however, oversimplifies a complex problem: despite the modest gains in acceptance that occur with scientific literacy, the relationship is often conditional on individuals’ prior beliefs, attitudes, values, and worldviews (e.g., their “priors”; note that we are using the term “priors” colloquially—we do not intend to refer to Bayesian priors). While greater scientific knowledge can increase the likelihood of accepting scientific results for some, it can increase the likelihood of rejecting those results for others—the opposite of what the deficit model envisages.
Minor Eruption on Twitter this week as Joe Rogan promoted Robert Kennedy Jr and his Anti-Vax crusade, got challenged by Immunologist Peter Hotez, then suggested Hotez debate RFK Jr, whereafter the new Twitter boss, Elon Musk, pretty much came out as a full-on Anti-Vaxxer.
The relationship to climate denial should be clear to anyone that follows this blog.
The appeal of RFK jr or even Rogan is the psychological needs they fulfill, not because they get anyone closer to Truth. But because they offer simple intuitive answers in a seemingly incomprehensible world. They offer a sense of agency and control, and a sense of community.
Scientific reasoning is only possible when people operate in good faith, are transparent, are solely operating in pursuit of truth, and never remove themselves from doubt.
— Prof Peter Hotez MD PhD (@PeterHotez) June 19, 2023
The goals of political media (or “political-ISH media”) like Rogan is not truth-seeking … but meaning-seeking, pleasure-seeking, community-seeking.
To show up there as a scientist to argue the merits of claims that are fundamentally NON-falsifiable (which all conspiracy theories are) is a fool’s errand.
It’s like if I were a fish and I agreed to a duel. Folks. I’m going to lose but NOT because I’m a bad gunslinger , but because I CANT BREATHE ONCE I LEAVE THE WATER FFS (and I don’t have hands)
POINT BEING: the purpose of MOST contemporary media has NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUTH. Think about it- How does Rogan HAVE all those dollars to pay a scientist to debate RFK? Because the purpose of contemporary media is attention-based profit. And in that arena, Rogan is winning.
The information war is playing out in real time across the European Union and the United States as well-organized and large online communities that had previously pushed back against COVID-19 restrictions are now framing Russia’s invasion as being between good-guy Moscow and Kyiv and its Western allies — now cast as New World Order oppressors — according to misinformation experts and fact-checking groups.
“The conspiracy sphere is an empty shell of sorts that aggregates as news unfolds,” said Pauline Talagrand, who’s overseeing Agence France-Presse’s fact-checking work worldwide. “Whether it’s vaccines or masks, there is always something that will trigger people who can be easily manipulated and are distrustful of traditional information.”
Presidential candidate @RobertKennedyJr recently went on television & made claims about the Covid vaccine.
“The problem with these recurring crises is that they contribute to the enlargement of these spheres and lead to the entrenchment of their narratives,” she added.
As with COVID-related misinformation, social networks like Telegram and alternative video-sharing platform Odysee — one of the remaining platforms that provides ready access in Europe to banned Kremlin-backed broadcaster RT and COVID-19 conspiracy documentaries — are playing a key role. While mainstream platforms have removed, or demoted, much of this conspiracy content, there are few if any restrictions on the outer fringes of the web.
COVID-19 conspiracy groups on Facebook — some with tens of thousands of members — blame the West, not Russia, for causing the war. Telegram channels that in early February railed against the so-called deep state now post pictures of dead Ukrainians, claiming they are fake. QAnon-affiliated websites suggest Russia invaded its Western neighbor to weed out child sexual abusers— a central mantra of that conspiracy theory framework.
I hated “Planet of the Apes” when it first came out in 1968. Primarily because it displaced “2001: A Space Odyssey” in theatres, and secondly because some odd balls didn’t seem to know that the apes in 2001 were actors which netted Apes some undeserved awards IMHO. Anyway, since my Czech father-in-law brought his family to Canada in 1980, and knew nothing about pop-sci (which always acts as a pillow for social change), I purchased a DVD copy of the original “Planet of the Apes” then showed it to them during the last holiday break. Rewatching this movie can be instructive for people today: The chimps represent the scientists and are always pushing for the truth. The gorillas represent the military (and the complex that supports them). The orangutans represent both the politicians and the religious order -AND- are willing to coverup the truth in order to “conserve” the status quo. Art imitates life?
I like the cartoon. It is a good one.
I hated “Planet of the Apes” when it first came out in 1968. Primarily because it displaced “2001: A Space Odyssey” in theatres, and secondly because some odd balls didn’t seem to know that the apes in 2001 were actors which netted Apes some undeserved awards IMHO. Anyway, since my Czech father-in-law brought his family to Canada in 1980, and knew nothing about pop-sci (which always acts as a pillow for social change), I purchased a DVD copy of the original “Planet of the Apes” then showed it to them during the last holiday break. Rewatching this movie can be instructive for people today: The chimps represent the scientists and are always pushing for the truth. The gorillas represent the military (and the complex that supports them). The orangutans represent both the politicians and the religious order -AND- are willing to coverup the truth in order to “conserve” the status quo. Art imitates life?