| ABOUT US | ARCHIVES | LINKS | RSS FEED | MONDAYS | |

3quarksdaily

An Eclectic Digest of Science, Art and Literature

« Doctors back circumcision | Main | The Reluctant Fundamentalist – review »

August 29, 2012

Smoke and mirrors

From Times Higher Education:

Cover_feature_160812'Agnotology', the art of spreading doubt (as pioneered by Big Tobacco), distorts the scepticism of research to obscure the truth. Areas of academic life have been tainted by the practice, but some scholars are fighting back by showing the public how to spot such sleight of hand, reports Matthew Reisz.

Doubt is the lifeblood of the academy. Historians and political scientists try never to take on trust any public statement that cannot be independently verified. Scientists look for every possible alternative factor and explanation before claiming that there is a causal link between A and B. Philosophers have even been known not to take their own existence for granted. An attitude of radical scepticism is essential for most serious research. Yet there is also a point at which such scepticism becomes pathological and irresponsible. Whole industries have an interest in casting doubt on the overwhelming evidence that smoking damages health, that nuclear energy imposes substantial risks, that climate change is taking place and that the pre-credit crunch banking system was a house of cards. Academics who cultivate the art of spreading doubt - what one scholar calls "agnotology" - are often de facto protecting corporate profits and discouraging governments and individuals from taking action. They also give authority to views that would be taken with a large pinch of salt if put forward by journalists, lawyers or public relations firms.Many people writing about academic integrity focus on clear conflicts of interest that can lead to the distortion of research agendas and the risk of corruption.

More here.

Posted by Azra Raza at 06:41 AM | Permalink

Comments

Agnotology ought to be considered in concert with Epistemology, so that we understand how much of our "knowledge" is actually only "belief", and therefore so is our ignorance.

In that context, then, in so many cases they end up being the same thing.

Posted by: Dredd | Aug 29, 2012 7:04:14 AM

The political business of throwing dust in the face of the public is an old one, and has little to do with ascertaining what the truth is.

Often, it's enough to get a few opponents to dispute findings - no real debate ensues and it's enough to make ppl say 'hey, the experts disagree - no one can be sure what the facts are'.

Result: even if 99% of the informed opinion says x, the 1% that say y can muddy the waters well enough to obscure what's what.

That's not an argument against letting the minority view be heard, but its a sad effect of powerful interest groups who don't want uncomfortable truths to be really accepted.

A good UK example of this was the 'experts' who came out of the woodwork to 'disprove' Wilkinson & Pickett's findings in 'The Spirit Level' that wide income inequality correlates with serious social evils.

Posted by: Chris | Aug 29, 2012 7:51:26 AM

Whole industries have an interest in casting doubt on the overwhelming evidence that smoking damages health, that nuclear energy imposes substantial risks, that climate change is taking place and that the pre-credit crunch banking system was a house of cards. (emph mine)

I agree this notion of "agnotology" is a useful one, though it is a somewhat ugly word. But the notion as constructed itself hides obvious biases. It suggests that moneyed interests are the chief reason scientific findings are illegitimately/improperly questioned. This gives us a heuristic - in any controversy where two sides disagree, follow the money. If you lack specific knowledge, the side that is "industrial" or "corporate" (pick your swear word) is the one you should assume is wrong.

Would that it were so simple. When someone tells me vaccines are forced upon children by "Big Pharma" I stick with Pfizer. Contraceptives don't cause breast cancer just because the companies marketing them make profits. GM food and gene splicing (as distinguished perhaps from IP or economic policies of companies like Monsanto) are indeed safe on the whole, even though opponents have less money than proponents. And opposition to nuclear power is driven more by paranoia than by fact, however many billions of dollars power companies rake in. (I suspect, without much confidence yet since the story is still playing out, that 'fractivism' is being built out of similar fears and motivations) Ditto re evolution vs ID, or stem cell research versus fundamentalist churches. Or sense versus "legitimate rape." And on every single one of these issues you'll find people on the "wrong" side claiming to be doing science, publishing or trying to and saying they're being victimized.

Most of the 'bad skeptics' on these issues aren't in it for the money either. The trouble of course is that while money motivates people, it's not the only (or even the strongest) motivator. Values and ideology matter at least as much. Entire books (like 'What's the matter with Kansas') have been written wondering how such a strange thing could be true, but strange or not, true it certainly is. "Agnotology" may be a useful label, but the central issue - a) everyone craves the imprimatur of science and b) the dress is easier to acquire than the discipline - isn't predominantly a story about money.

Posted by: prasad | Aug 29, 2012 8:34:01 AM

Prasad, I am saving this comment (and will violate copyright by copying and pasting it in the future)...

Posted by: omar | Aug 29, 2012 11:36:24 AM

"stem cell research versus fundamentalist churches."

This one may be a bit of a stretch. The only stem cells being objected to are the embryonic ones (hESC). There have been a very few trials of using these cells on humans, but with no good results as of yet. This, added to the fact that pluripotent cells are now available without sacrificing embryos, and the many many successes of adult stem cell therapies, are oddly making the "fundamentalist churches" more aligned with science than the hESC-or-bust crowd.

Posted by: Carlos | Aug 29, 2012 11:55:54 AM

Thanks Omar.

Carlos,
I hesitated before using that example, since it's qualitatively different from the rest: the principal argument of the religious is moral violation, not an empirical claim. My broader argument doesn't depend on that specific case either.

But having used the example, I might as well show what I think is good about it. Here I think your response actually illustrates the issue - you -didn't- respond with the moral argument against destroying embryos. You made scientific claims, for example about the relative value of embryo and adult stem cell research. And fwiw they are claims the broader scientific community seems to disagree with. [*]

It's (imo) an example of the general tendency to minimize the non-moral costs (here, scientific ones) of moral commitments. To give a very different example, it's certainly a curious fact that most people opposing (condoning) water-boarding for moral reasons also think it's been demonstrated torture doesn't (does) work. A convenient fact, surely. [As it happens, though this is tangent to tangent, I'm pretty sure the view that torture never works is not just false but obviously false. How odd it should be if Jack Bauer beating up a terrorist never managed to figure out that he could "validate" the victim's responses by occasionally asking questions he knows the answer to, but where the victim doesn't know that he knows (for example). To hear the torture-does-not-work people talk, you'd think no-one before them had noticed that the process was intrinsically adversarial!]

[*] To be fair, I'm guessing there are scientists who use the embryo/adult stick, but from the other side, to advance their own party-political goals...

Posted by: prasad | Aug 29, 2012 12:32:33 PM

prasad,

"It suggests that moneyed interests are the chief reason scientific findings are illegitimately/improperly questioned."

And rightly so, for about a century now (The Peak of Sanity - 5).

"When someone tells me vaccines are forced upon children by "Big Pharma" I stick with Pfizer."

In other words, you follow the money.

Your reasons for doing so are also quite transparent.

Posted by: Dredd | Aug 29, 2012 12:47:43 PM

I'm not certain that doubt is the appropriate word here. I think what is being spread is more like suspicion, which in some minds manifests as overt paranoia.

Doubt or suspicion? Doubt, I think, arrives upon weighing evidence and experience. Suspicion? a nervous process, more imaginary than carefully considered (Though the tendency to gravitate towards suspicion and paranoia might be rooted in ones experience.)

Any thoughts or criticisms on this matter?

Posted by: William Goudy | Aug 29, 2012 1:07:50 PM

"Your reasons for doing so are also quite transparent."

Wait, you mean like Pfizer pays me money to astroturf 3qd?

Posted by: prasad | Aug 29, 2012 1:23:54 PM

"And fwiw they are claims the broader scientific community seems to disagree with. [*]"

I was not aware there was any dispute on the actual current state of things. Where are you seeing this? I certainly don't want to be spouting nonsense.

Posted by: Carlos | Aug 29, 2012 1:31:50 PM

Carlos, I certainly don't think you're talking "nonsense" :D
My sense of the landscape, based on nothing deeper than NYT type reading, is that adult stem cells are seen as less capable of becoming different types of cells. I won't claim any deeper knowledge than that. Maybe someone here works in these areas..

Posted by: prasad | Aug 29, 2012 1:55:23 PM

Oh Mr. Dredd, you always keep me on my toes. Thus far, I have not caught polio, influenza, measles, or lockjaw, though I have been exposed countless times. Stupid Pfizer.

Posted by: Ray Butlers | Aug 29, 2012 5:15:04 PM

And the freudians would say the pic is an outstanding example of phalic narcissism, perhaps adding: where do one goes from here?

Posted by: Félix E. F. Larocca, MD | Aug 29, 2012 9:46:44 PM

Dredd,

I just recently contracted Whooping Cough most likely from a teacher who got it from a student whose Mom didn't want her poor little child to get autism.

I'm with Pfizer on this one too.

Posted by: DAS | Aug 30, 2012 12:04:31 AM

W. Goudy:

I like your take. If it ever turned out (which it did) that corporations faked/twisted/misinterpreted studies or that government agencies faked/twisted/misinterpreted studies then the seeds have already been sown.

The cigarette companies may have had to spend millions to obfuscate the health effects of their products. Likewise the expensive efforts of governments to whitewash their varied failures and atrocities.

Consequently very little money need be spent now by either side to bring the other side under suspicion. We just have to point and say: The cigarette companies did it so certainly the oil companies and Big Pharma, and Big Ag are doing it now. Or remember the Maine? or the coverups during the Nixon administration? Certainly the Bushes and the Clintons and Obama are doing the same stuff today.

No need for facts or intelligent arguments. The only need is to determine which side of the bell curve a person is on. If he's on your side any combination of syllables inchoate or otherwise will push him further down your side of the curve. If he's not, then best just to wish him well and have a good day.

Posted by: DAS | Aug 30, 2012 12:15:32 AM

DAS, If I'm understanding you correctly, you're veering toward false equivalency. I'd say tobacco companies are culpable for their mendacity regardless of government's role in "whatever". The fact that other institutions are not always honest does not let someone else off the hook. The moral universe is not a series of chits in two columns in which one side gets to retaliate whenever the other side messes up. It's this kind of reasoning that lead people to cut Bush II a break because of the naughty things Clinton did. That is a trully decadent approach and is the essense of the problem here. The fact that Christians engage in this nonsense is enough to inspire Christ to come down here and straighten some of his followers out.

Posted by: Ray Butlers | Aug 30, 2012 3:43:01 PM

DAS,

I'm not saying that "Because the cigarette companies engaged in criminal behavior, everyone else is" is a good argument. I'm just suggesting the rather pessimistic view that if people are too busy or too lazy to fully engage on a particular issue they are likely to go with their current biases. They will then rationalize those biases in the face of contradictory evidence by claiming that all such evidence was contrived by scientists paid to do so.

I would have a reasonable doubt with regard to a particular issue if I were insufficiently educated on that issue. I could remedy this doubt by educating myself. If, however, I didn't have the time to do so (or if I suspected I might get an answer I didn't want) I would want a good reason for not so educating myself. I can assume at the start that the facts are impossible to determine because the waters have been muddied by compromised research. This is just the sort of "reason" I'm looking for.

Now I can go back to focusing on my family, friends, job, and hobbies with a clear conscience.

Meanwhile friends die from smoking because they believe "natural" cigarettes are healthier, or money and time are wasted removing third-hand "smoke" from walls that will never be licked by children. Or the houses of the poor are inundated by rising waters resulting from a failure to reduce greenhouse gases, or the world is sent into a massive depression because of unregulated speculation on carbon trading markets while the average global temperature declines.

We'll all find out what happens when it happens. Then we will have run out of excuses.

Posted by: DAS | Aug 30, 2012 5:07:42 PM

Post a comment






Subscribe to this blog's feed  

PayAnywhere with iphone credit card swiper

Android Tablet

Bluetooth Headset

2013 New Style Dresses

Compare Car Rental Prices

DHgate.com Wholesale

3QD on Facebook

3QD on Kindle

3QD by Daily Email

Receive all blogposts at the same time every day.

Enter your Email:


Preview 3QD Email

3QD on Twitter

Miscellany

Lijit Search

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Add to Google

Recent Comments

roger gathmann on Why Steven Pinker Is Wrong

Doogle on Why Steven Pinker Is Wrong

Kyle on Syria: Inventing a Religious War

Peter John on Gezi Park

dthoko on The History of Typography - Animated Short

Richard on John Gray’s Godless Mysticism

Abbas Raza on Why Steven Pinker Is Wrong

nogodrod on Syria: Inventing a Religious War

Lusine on Quest for 'Genius Babies'?

Bill on Syria: Inventing a Religious War

j_93 on Gezi Park

j_93 on Syria: Inventing a Religious War

Norman Costa on The Insanity Virus

Dave Ranning on Political Ideology and the Avoidance of Dissonance-Arousing Situations

Sundar on Quest for 'Genius Babies'?

Sundar on Syria: Inventing a Religious War

gaddeswarup on What is ‘smart’ and how does it fit our consciousness?

gaddeswarup on What is ‘smart’ and how does it fit our consciousness?

musafir on Syria: Inventing a Religious War

Lusine on Syria: Inventing a Religious War

Brad Wilson on Gezi Park

Raza Husain on Syria: Inventing a Religious War

Brad Wilson on The Insanity Virus

billy on Syria: Inventing a Religious War

rafiq on The Insanity Virus

Acclaim For 3QD


"I couldn't tear myself away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on this superb site."—Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.

"I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

"Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual.

Read more here.

The 3QD Prizes

Subscribe to this blog's feed