"Scientists must be free to communicate without politicians’ spin"
ric...@gedye.plus.com
From yesterday’s Observer newspaper, an interesting view on developments in science communication in the UK.
Glenn Hampson
Thanks for the article Richard---interesting read. In the US, there are fewer than half as many journalists working at newspapers today than 12 years ago. Science journalism at newspapers has almost disappeared as a profession. Over this same period, we’ve seen the rise of social media and preprints. This decline in traditional science journalism and rise in science publicity have combined to make it harder for the public to know what research to believe and what to tune out.
It’s an interesting situation that in the UK, government press officers play such a prominent role in knowledge dissemination---one can only hope they don’t ever become politically directed (as they were in the US during the Trump administration). But I think the idea of government press officers isn’t terribly bad in principle when we’re fighting a pandemic (or other emergencies) in order to ensure the government’s advice is uniform. Again, here in the US, there was (and is) such a cacophony of opinions coming from the CDC, NIH, FDA, university experts, etc., that many people concluded scientists simply didn’t know what they were talking about, so maybe it would be better to just listen to Joe Rogan instead because at least he seems confident.
I do like the idea of scientists becoming better communicators, but IME, we absolutely need communication professionals involved as well---relying solely on researchers to communicate isn’t the answer, and relying on “science correspondents” isn’t sustainable either since they’re a vanishing breed. Some sort of centralized communication capacity might be the ticket, but this office needs to be run right (expert, politically independent, etc.).
--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit
http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/006501d8480d%24e2959c20%24a7c0d460%24%40gedye.plus.com.
David Wojick
Glenn Hampson
On Apr 4, 2022, at 3:13 PM, David Wojick <dwo...@craigellachie.us> wrote:
On the other hand in social media we now have something new and important, which is lengthy discussions of research results, including by people who know the science. I myself do quite a bit of blog commenting almost every day, mostly in discussions of policy related science. Discussion is better than passive reading. Plus I get a lot of twitter feeds alerting me to important new results.
David Wojick
Glenn Hampson
Hi David,
According to a recent report on COVID communications by the National Academies (doi DOI 10.17226/26361), disinformation is defined as deliberately falsified information that is intended to deceive, while misinformation is “untrue information, factually or contextually, that is shared or distributed.” Here’s a recent PLOS article on disinformation cited in the NAS report. It’s critical for all of us---in research, government, politics, and beyond---to understand what disinformation means, how it is used and spreads, and the threats it poses to truth, reason, and democracy. I hope this article helps: Why do people spread false information online? The effects of message and viewer characteristics on self-reported likelihood of sharing social media disinformation (plos.org).
Best,
Glenn
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/B4CC981F-4EBC-423B-ACAD-3F3C16BAF2FF%40craigellachie.us.
David Wojick
Glenn Hampson
Hi David,
In politics, look no further than Russia’s state media channel for a fountain of disinformation, claiming that Russian forces are being greeting as liberating heroes by the Ukrainians. In science, Fox correspondent Lara Logan said yesterday that Darwin’s Theory of Evolution a hoax perpetrated by Jews (Lara Logan Suggests Theory of Evolution Is Jewish-Funded Hoax - Rolling Stone). That gem checks two boxes: disinformation and antisemitism. There are also, of course, floods of anti-vax, anti climate, and other anti knowledge streams---some based in a misunderstanding of science, some repeating tropes that are pure fiction with no basis in fact (e.g., that microchips in vaccines are allowing Bill Gates and George Soros to control our brains). In the realm of anti-reality, we have purveyors of hate ranging from Alex Jones (InfoWars) claiming that the Sandy Hook massacre was a false flag operation, to Donald Trump and his army claiming the 2020 election was stolen, and beyond.
That’s what we call disinformation---willful lies propagated through the media---as opposed to misinformation, which is more of the ilk you’re describing, where in the course of debating issues, people of good conscience simply misstate or misinterpret the facts but without the intent to deceive.
Best,
Glenn
David Wojick
David Wojick
Glenn Hampson
Hi David,
I think I see where you’re confused. Misinformation might, under generous conditions where we don’t assume ill motives, arguably be a judgement call. Disinformation is not---it’s objective. Your statement that if you believe what you’re saying then it isn’t disinformation is categorically false.
If you (not you personally but the royal you) sincerely believe that climate change is a hoax, that the science behind it is utterly without merit, that climate scientists are being paid by liberal lobbyists, and so on, and if you then portray yourself as a climate expert and publish relentlessly in opposition to CO2 reduction policies, that’s disinformation plain and simple. The same is true for ant-vax rhetoric that takes bits and pieces of sciency-sounding interpretations, and has a sciency-seeming person peddle these interpretations. The outcome in both cases is to distort and deceive, not to advance and educate.
If a raving lunatic with a news show sincerely believes his or her information, and if this information is objectively, provably false, the lunatic doesn’t get a free pass. They are harming the pubic discourse with their rhetoric. The fact that they believe what they’re saying is irrelevant. They can say what they want, but facts are facts and falsehoods are falsehoods. A nicely wrapped lie is still a lie. On the other hand, if a scientist with a different interpretation of the facts writes a paper laying out why he or she thinks they’re correct, this is the kind of useful discourse you’re talking about. But when these differences get weaponized by media with an agenda and promoted as evidence that there is a genuine lack of consensus among credible scientists, this discourse can be turned into misinformation and disinformation.
Misinformation in these cases is hard to distinguish from disinformation; misinformation is easier to spot with regard to advocacy efforts on either side of an issue that don’t look at the full picture or that cherry-pick evidence to highlight one interpretation over another. Disinformation is the oil companies promoting fake science for decades purporting to show that fossil fuels don’t contribute to global warming, tobacco companies promoting fake science showing no link between smoking and cancer, and a constellation of conspiracy theorists today promoting fake cures for COVID. The fact that all of these people may well believe their own rhetoric is immaterial. What they are peddling is fake news---objectively, demonstrably false information.
And that’s a huge problem.
So, I do encourage you to read more about this issue. There’s a ton of stuff out there (for example, check out my recent posts on the SCI website for why we believe the things we do---Why do smart people do dumb things? (sciencecommunication.institute). There is NO credible literature that supports your point of view on this, so I’d rather not take up everyone’s time litigating your idea here. As always, I appreciate your sometimes provocative perspectives---it helps me see who’s still reading this listserv! But in this case, this is not only a bridge too far but a bridge that shouldn’t be built.
Best regards,
David Wojick
Glenn Hampson
Hi David,
As usual, your hard-headedness is annoying, but it makes people think, so thank you. I think you’ve identified a flaw in our definitions here, which is great---we need to be more precise. It’s true that misinformed people can spread either misinformation or disinformation. But before attaching labels to their actions, we also need to investigate the roots of their misinformation, and also look at their actions---whether they are knowingly spreading false information, doing so unwittingly, and so on. Maybe a matrix representation would help here. As far as I’m aware, the science communication community hasn’t dug that deeply into the differences between mis- and dis-information---the definitions that have emerged are consensus definitions and not the result of rigid intellectual examinations. So, you’ve put your finger on something here that needs more attention.
But David---we might need a higher power here to weigh in on the rest of your observations so I’m tapping Mario Biagiolo (hopefully he can spare a few moments). What you’re essentially alleging is that we bear no responsibility for spreading lies in our society, and that’s an interesting allegation. Focusing just on science, if a member of the Kansas School Board sincerely believes the world was created 6,000 years ago and acts on their belief by requiring state schools to teach Creationism alongside Evolution, are they spreading misinformation, disinformation, or neither? If the school board member is doing this to curry favor with the electorate knowing full well that evolution is perhaps the most well-established theory in all of science, then yes---they’re spreading disinformation. But if they do so from their conviction that they’re right, then you say they’re blameless. I say they’re not---they’re still spreading disinformation because their statements are demonstrably counterfactual.
Mario also wrote a recent article on mis- and dis-information in US environmental policy (which I circulated to the group), identifying an interesting phenomenon whereby we are now weaponizing disinformation---I’ll let him do the explaining (hopefully). Mario?
Simon Linacre
On 5 Apr 2022, at 20:54, David Wojick <dwo...@craigellachie.us> wrote:
Glenn, your early-on email cited this definition: "disinformation is defined as deliberately falsified information that is intended to deceive, while misinformation is “untrue information, factually or contextually, that is shared or distributed.""
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/276DF094-170B-44D8-AF2F-1349F5021937%40craigellachie.us.
David Wojick
Mel DeSart
Seriously David??? You don’t think that a person can sincerely believe that something is false???
Statement: some childhood vaccines cause autism. I sincerely believe that to be false.
Mel
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/66545622-B3B2-4545-B0BD-F2B005ED7E65%40craigellachie.us.
David Wojick
Glenn Hampson
Stay tuned David. I know Prof. Biagioli is still hoping to weigh in when his schedule permits---we need expert opinion on the moral/legal/ethical definition of truth (or whatever angle he was going to cover). Of particular relevance to this group is how the disinformation lobby has turned the concept of “open” on its head. Now, if information isn’t utterly open---no withheld data from clinical trial participants, no delays in responding to massive on ongoing requests for data from conspiracy theorists, etc.---then it is ”dark” and not to be trusted. “Transparency” has become a politicized concept used to support the disinformation narrative that science cannot be trusted because it’s unwilling and/or unable to be completely “open.”
Mario calls one attribute of this dynamic “parasitism,” and describes it as “not just ordinary appropriation but highly efficient targeted appropriation of the host’s resources. Deregulation advocates not only turn their adversaries’ norms against them and harm the public interest while pretending to defend it, but they do so economically, by skillfully maximizing the bang and minimizing the buck. Mobilizing ethics to change rule-making protocols is a lot cheaper than fighting epistemic controversies; criticizing science is infinitely easier than producing an alternative science; playing scientist on TV to make it look like there is no scientific consensus on global warming is remarkably less time-consuming and skill-intensive than becoming a scientist; demanding data and calculations is a lot less resource-intensive than producing them from information available in the public domain, and while many people can “stop stuff,” far fewer can produce knowledge. The problem with conspiratorial thinking is not so much that it is false but that it is extraordinarily efficient. It’s a cheap way of wasting the world.”
I circulated the link to Mario’s article before but here it is again: Dark Transparency: Hyper-Ethics at Trump’s EPA (lareviewofbooks.org).
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/BB42AE46-C7B2-48CC-929A-61F3172C35C2%40craigellachie.us.
Glenn Hampson
David Wojick
David Wojick
Glenn Hampson
Hi David,
This all ties together in a number of relevant ways. To your two points, going back to the original thread---still in the subject line---more communication isn’t necessarily better, especially if a good chunk of what we’re counting as “communication” is actually promoting half-baked claims on Twitter, which then get picked by the media, or getting flooded by comments from science deniers who aren’t at all interested in improving their own understanding or the science literacy of others. Misinformation and disinformation are key elements in this mix---if we are indeed doing more science communication than before (and I don’t know of any numbers to support this), then I suspect a good deal of this activity involves myth-busting as opposed to substantive and productive engagement.
And second, your claim that the volume of science disinformation out there is small is entirely without merit---sorry. I would compile an exhaustive list for you but suspect you would just say this is all honest misunderstanding and legitimate differences of opinion. Some of it is, but a lot of it is not, and is instead a narrative deliberately constructed to promote an agenda (and there isn’t just one---Trumpism, anti-elitism, Q-ism, etc.) that has nothing whatsoever to do with discovering truth and promoting understanding. In these narratives, truth is the enemy because it’s “dark” (see Mario’s essay), or funded by George Soros (read: antisemitism), or anti-capitalist, or woke, or any number of other gimmicks that latch onto grievances and portray truth as an enemy of freedom. It’s the same playbook that authoritarian regimes have used for centuries now, and it’s extremely effective in the modern social media era.
I hope this isn’t all too much for the list---my apologies. Our conversations do tend to go in waves so just ignore the emails with this subject line if this topic isn’t your cup of tea.
Margaret Winker Cook
Margaret
Margaret Winker, MD
Trustee, WAME
***
@WAMedEditors
Views are my own.
On Apr 6, 2022, at 1:53 PM, David Wojick <dwo...@craigellachie.us> wrote:
Speaking of waiting, I am still waiting for a single example of disinformation in the public discussion of science where disinformation is defined as deliberately falsified information that is intended to deceive.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/0D3B5313-2116-4B20-B59E-4B15BF1F1446%40craigellachie.us.
Glenn Hampson
Don’t get hung up on the exact wording of my definition David---propose a better one if you’d like. There’s a large universe of examples to choose from that include misinformation, disinformation, and some combination of both. See this good primer by Jevin West and Carl Bergstrom (they of “Calling Bullshit” fame) for starters: Misinformation in and about science | PNAS.
Examples include bad science that keeps getting promoted even though it’s been retracted (e.g., the Wakefield study, purporting to show a connection between vaccines and autism, is still widely promoted as gospel by the anti-vax community), non-science that gets promoted as science (e.g., GMOs, home remedies for COVID, etc), agendas that try to supplant science (e.g., creationism, dark transparency), non-disputes in science that get portrayed as disputes for political benefit (e.g., climate change), and much more. Do your research though---I think you’re just playing devil’s advocate here and asking everyone on the list to prove the existence of an obvious fact. It’s abundantly clear and has been for years that mis- and dis-information in science is an important issue. What would help, I think, is to nail down more clearly what constitutes “dis” information versus “mis,” and also explore your earlier point about culpability for either/both.
David Wojick
David Wojick
Glenn Hampson
You’re absolutely wrong on this David. Let’s look at Joe Rogan. According to this NPR article (What the Joe Rogan podcast controversy says about the online misinformation ecosystem : NPR ), “In a December episode of his podcast, Rogan interviewed Dr. Robert Malone, a scientist who worked on early research into the mRNA technology behind top COVID-19 vaccines, but who is now critical of the mRNA vaccines. Malone made baseless and disproven claims, including falsely stating that getting vaccinated puts people who already have had COVID-19 at higher risk.” Given that Rogan’s podcast reaches 11 million people, public health officials are understandably alarmed when he does stuff like this.
By your definition, this is all innocent. Joe Rogan was just dinking around asking questions, Malone sincerely believed he was speaking the truth, so there’s nothing to see here---just keep moving. But by EVERYONE ELSE’S estimation in science and public policy, this is a textbook case of disinformation spreading.
If your smoking is a scientist publicly making a claim that he or she doesn’t actually believe, that’s a needle in a haystack but that isn’t how the entire world defines disinformation---just you.
I hope this helps. We don’t need to reinvent the wheel here---no one is going to start considering disinformation spreaders part of the legitimate science communication ecosystem (nor should they, please).
Glenn Hampson
I should have said “smoking gun” and not just “smoking”….sorry about that. Speaking of which, here is a list of researchers who have falsified their research: List of scientific misconduct incidents - Wikipedia. The published versions of their research constitute on narrow example of disinformation---fraudulent findings that have deliberately polluted the scientific record and resulted in a misdirection of research efforts and misallocation of research funds.
From: Glenn Hampson
Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2022 12:35 PM
To: 'David Wojick' <dwo...@craigellachie.us>; Margaret Winker Cook <margare...@gmail.com>; osi20...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: "Scientists must be free to communicate without politicians’ spin"
You’re absolutely wrong on this David. Let’s look at Joe Rogan. According to this NPR article (What the Joe Rogan podcast controversy says about the online misinformation ecosystem : NPR ), “In a December episode of his podcast, Rogan interviewed Dr. Robert Malone, a scientist who worked on early research into the mRNA technology behind top COVID-19 vaccines, but who is now critical of the mRNA vaccines. Malone made baseless and disproven claims, including falsely stating that getting vaccinated puts people who already have had COVID-19 at higher risk.” Given that Rogan’s podcast reaches 11 million people, public health officials are understandably alarmed when he does stuff like this.
By your definition, this is all innocent. Joe Rogan was just dinking around asking questions, Malone sincerely believed he was speaking the truth, so there’s nothing to see here---just keep moving. But by EVERYONE ELSE’S estimation in science and public policy, this is a textbook case of disinformation spreading.
If your smoking is a scientist publicly making a claim that he or she doesn’t actually believe, that’s a needle in a haystack but that isn’t how the entire world defines disinformation---just you.
I hope this helps. We don’t need to reinvent the wheel here---no one is going to start considering disinformation spreaders part of the legitimate science communication ecosystem (nor should they, please).
From: David Wojick <dwo...@craigellachie.us>
Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2022 1:22 PM
To: Margaret Winker Cook <margare...@gmail.com>
Biagioli, Mario
- A climate scientist believes, based on years of gathering , observing, and analyzing evidence, that climate change is very real. A clear majority (but not totality) of scientists in their field share their same beliefs, for the same empirical reasons, which confirms to them that their beliefs are sound. They decide to publish a diagram to convey this pattern -- the dramatic increase in temperatures science the industrial revolution -- to the public and policy makers. In the process of doing so, they end up dramatizing the visual evidence, making the diagram look cleaner than it should be. (To make the question of intent a lot simpler, let's assume that, at some level, they knew they were dramatizing the diagram).
- Are they engaging in disinformation? If so, are they engaging in disinformation concerning the diagram or disinformation concerning global warming? (I separate the two claims because one could say that even if the diagram is dramatized, it does not make a false claim about global warming). Even if the scientist knows that the diagram may be exaggerated, one could say that it still conveys what the scientists, and their community, knows about climate at that time: that it is happening.
- In sum does this vignette exemplify information, misinformation, disinformation -- or something else? And do you think it matters to differentiate between the two claims: 1) that climate change is happening and 2) that the diagram represents it? I'm asking because there may be two different notions of intent involved in the two claims, that is, that a scientist may be found to have intentionally dramatized the visual evidence with the intent of conveying a true statement about climate? (One could have, simultaneously, the intent to dramatize a diagram and the intent to tell the truth about climate change). How would you call that?
- A person with no background in climate science works, and is paid by, a think tank or PR firm to write op-eds in a variety of media venues arguing that global warming is a hoax. (Where the think- tank gets the funds to pay their writers is not relevant to this vignette). Let's assume that this person does not know whether global warming is real or not -- they don't have the skills and knowledge to determine that, or even to read and evaluate the available literature on the topic. (So, even if they believe that claim climate change is still indeterminate, they do not think so as a result of having gone through the relevant literature and evidence and have decided that the scientific debate is still open, but just because they have not bothered to check, and probably don't have the skills to do so. All cows are dark at night).
- At the same time, they are paid to write up and publish a certain narrative (that climate change is a hoax), and they believe that they have the right to express that opinion, irrespectively of whether they are true or not. Opinions are opinions and free speech protects them. And they can legitimately represent those opinions to themselves as opinions because they have not bothered to check their truth status. Their bosses just tell them to write, and they follow their contractual responsibilities.
- So their intent may be difficult to pinpoint. One could say that they do not intend to deceive (they don't know for sure whether what they say is true or not, and thus they don't know whether what they publish may deceive readers). Their job is just to write what their employers want -- millions of people do that, legally, everyday in the US, across many fields and industries. Certainly in PR. It's called "work for hire."
- But could one also argue that, perhaps, they may be negligent of not checking what they write and publish, thus dodging the question of intent? In sum, are they engaging in misinformation or disinformation? Or are they just doing their job as PR people, and that it is silly for us to criticize them for doing so? They are just following orders.
Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2022 4:35 AM
To: Mel DeSart <des...@uw.edu>
Cc: Simon Linacre <slin...@gmail.com>; Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>; ric...@gedye.plus.com <ric...@gedye.plus.com>; The Open Scholarship Initiative <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
David Wojick
In case 1 there is certainly no disinformation, as there is no intent to deceive. Opponents might well argue that the simplified diagram is a falsification. That happens a lot and sometimes it is a reasonable argument, if the missing complexity is important. If the claims are false then it is misinformation, but we do not know that. There is a lot of debate over how global temperatures over the last 150 years are estimated. In no case is global temperature actually observed.
Glenn Hampson
On Apr 6, 2022, at 2:21 PM, David Wojick <dwo...@craigellachie.us> wrote:
Hi Mario, a pleasure to meet you. I too am part historian as my Ph.D. is in history and philosophy of science. I am also a Kuhnian.
Biagioli, Mario
Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2022 2:40 PM
To: David Wojick <dwo...@craigellachie.us>
Cc: Biagioli, Mario <biag...@law.ucla.edu>; Mel DeSart <des...@uw.edu>; Simon Linacre <slin...@gmail.com>; ric...@gedye.plus.com <ric...@gedye.plus.com>; The Open Scholarship Initiative <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Glenn Hampson
Niche indeed, but important and relevant to our work here. If I may expound a bit, IME, the reality of science disinformation (or propaganda) is that Joe Average isn’t getting hired to be the face of the Big Lie. It’s someone who has an MD or PhD, preferably in the field in question. So at some level---unless this quasi-expert is incredibly naïve or self-absorbed---these hired guns must understand that their views are outliers amongst their peers, and that their sugar daddy isn’t paying them to advance scientific discourse but to push an agenda that has nothing to do with science. These disinformation advocates are not simple innocent bystanders, unless again they really honestly don’t get that they’re being used.
So, to me anyway, that pretty much explains why reputable scientists do indeed consider the PR work of “rogue” scientists unethical when it comes to issues like climate change and vaccines. Their PR work isn’t about the science---that can and should be debated through science channels like journals and conferences. Their work is about themselves above all else, and society pays the bill.
Joyce Ogburn
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/BN6PR1701MB1732C18CDB69ACCC37BA3C8AC5E79%40BN6PR1701MB1732.namprd17.prod.outlook.com.
David Wojick
Mel DeSart
Sorry I’m late getting back to this part of the party – I had a big project that needed to be finished and info passed along to a publisher before the end of the day yesterday.
To address your scenarios, Mario . . . .
- If there is anything false or misleading in the diagram the scientists create, and if they recognized that some of that info is false or misleading, then they are guilty of disseminating disinformation. A mild case, perhaps, but still disinformation. But I say “IF” to start that last sentence because I can’t tell from your description whether this is a case of disinformation or not, since I don’t know what went into “dramatizing” the diagram. If there is NOT false or misleading info in the diagram (as in, if it’s perhaps a simplification of the overall data, like from not showing annual highs and lows but instead showing just a curve of average global temperatures in five year increments, which will smooth out most of the annual ups and downs, then they are not guilty of spreading disinformation, in my opinion. As for the overall global warming question, global warming is a fact. The data over the last 150+ years shows that the planet is most definitely getting warmer. The issue (and potential question) is the _cause_ of that warming - whether there is a substantial portion of the warming that is human-caused or whether this is just some natural warming cycle that has happened in the past and will happen again in the future. So if the presentation and diagram only address global warming without addressing cause, there is no mis- or dis-information involved because global warming is demonstrably real..
- As for the second example, I think we’re potentially asking the mis- or dis-information question about the wrong person. Your description does sound very much like a “work for hire” situation, since the individual doing the writing is just crafting text that their employer wants them to write. And you stated below that the writer “does not know whether global warming is real or not”, so the writer is not _knowingly_ creating and disseminating false or misleading information, meaning the _writer_ is not guilty of disseminating disinformation. Since global warming DOES exist, I believe the writer is guilty of creating misinformation (because he was misinformed by his think tank saying that global warming is a hoax) and he in turn passed that information on, not knowing one way or the other whether it is correct). But I would argue that the people who are responsible for telling the writer what information to communicate ARE guilty of disinformation, since they are knowingly responsible for the creating and dissemination of false or misleading information, that global warming is a hoax.
Where these scenarios would get REALLY messy is if you had introduced the issue of to what degree, if any, humans are responsible for the current instance of global warming. THAT’S the element that is far more open for debate at this juncture. Anybody who says global warming isn’t happening is just flat out wrong. The data on that front don’t lie – average global temperatures have increased significantly over the last 150+ years. Anybody who doesn’t believe that doesn’t understand the science behind it (related to one of the simplest and most uncontroversial measurements to take – temperature) or just refuses to believe the scientific evidence, just as some people don’t believe in evolution, that the planet is billions of years old (rather than a few thousand, as the bible would suggest), that we have successfully sent astronauts to the moon and back, etc. But whether humans are responsible for this latest round of global warming, and to what degree they are responsible, is a much more unsettled question, and that’s where questions about mis- or dis-information would potentially get very complex/messy.
Mel
David Wojick
"Where and how" is indeed important. We still do not have an example of such a campaign. What I see being labeled as disinformation is simply disagreement in the context of science intensive policy debates.
David
Glenn Hampson
All interesting stuff. As far as I’m aware though---and please correct me if I’m wrong---this dive into the nature of and culpability for disinformation is just a tangent. Disinformation is dis information---it’s an outcome. And if a researcher, lobbyist, politician, or average citizen propagates information that is counter factual, it is disinformation---full stop.
It’s necessary from a mitigation perspective to try to understand motives and such (and here again, look at the three articles I wrote recently for the SCI website going into the technical, social and psychological reasons: Why do smart people do dumb things? (sciencecommunication.institute). But when Jenny McCarthy and Robert Kennedy Jr. are perpetually promoting anti-vax rhetoric (rhetoric, not science), when the public is being misled by doctors who spread disinformation about COVID, and when facts and truth are under assault not just in science (evolution, maternal care, climate change, pollution, etc.) but also reality itself (elections, insurrections, wars, civil rights, voting rights, etc.), it is the crime of the century, David, to simply shrug our shoulders and pretend this is all about free speech and reasonable people disagreeing.
It is not. It’s about a disaffected minority trying to retain their privilege by fomenting hate, division and dissent, not as an innocent byproduct of how to interpret the facts, but as a direct result of deliberately promoting a version of reality that is a nothing but a lie. I think it’s entirely plausible that people who are part of this fantasy ecosystem or are surrounded by it can’t see this reality (again, read my essays), so yes, in a way, some may be blameless. But the outcome is the same----disinformation is as disinformation does. How we got there and how to fix it are important questions, but let’s not push the lie that disinformation doesn’t exist. That’s the ultimate disinformation deception.
Glenn Hampson
David---I challenge you to find these examples on your own, read them, and critique them. Just googling "disinformation campaigns" gives you hundreds of hits apiece related to climate change, COVID, vaccines, tobacco, opioids, and more---and these are just the hot-button science issues! (not even getting into EPA policy, elections, voting rights, LGBTQ, Black Lives Matter, school curriculums, etc.). If you don’t like the tenor of the first article (about your former funder), there are hundreds of other articles to choose from:
- https://blog.ucsusa.org/elliott-negin/its-time-for-charles-koch-to-testify-about-his-climate-change-disinformation-campaign/
- https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/foreign-disinformation-social-media-campaigns-linked-to-falling-vaccination-rates/
- https://www.dw.com/en/covid-disinformation-campaign-targeted-biontech-pfizer/a-57702440
- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7566036/ (covers creationism, tobacco, and opioids)
-----Original Message-----
From: David Wojick <dwo...@craigellachie.us>
David Wojick
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
Biagioli, Mario
Sent: Thursday, April 7, 2022 10:38 AM
Glenn Hampson
An “honest scientific debate,” David, is one where actual science is debated, honestly. Almost all of the high-profile COVID debate with social media influence has zero to do with science and everything to do with quackery, pseudo-science, conspiracy theories, unqualified opinions, hearsay, anecdotes, etc. I challenge you to find any debate between two experienced epidemiologists with a solid background in stats and infectious diseases which has caused public disinformation. (Apologies Mario for lacking time at the moment for tying this into your observations.)
As for climate change and smoking, again, I challenge you to read more about the history of these disinformation campaigns. They are real, significant, and truly case studies in science disinformation.
I’m on the road now until tomorrow so apologies in advance for not being able to reply sooner.
Best,
Glenn
From: David Wojick <dwo...@craigellachie.us>
Sent: Thursday, April 7, 2022 1:23 PM
To: Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>
David Wojick
Mel DeSart
Hate to disagree with you, Glenn, but there’s one important word missing from this sentence
And if a researcher, lobbyist, politician, or average citizen propagates information that is counter factual, it is disinformation---full stop.
If someone propagates info that they KNOW to be counterfactual, it’s disinformation. If someone propagates info that they believe to be true but isn’t, it’s misinformation.
Example, with me as the misinformer.
Back in January I read a story on multiple news outlets that Neil Gorsuch was refusing to wear a mask when on the Supreme Court bench, even though Sonia Sotomayor has diabetes and is thus at risk or more severe issues should she contract COVID-19 and because Gorsuch sits right next to Sotomayor. I posted something about that on my Facebook page because I believed (based on seeing it on multiple new outlets) that it was true. Turns out it wasn’t. But I was still guilty of spreading misinformation.
Mel
Glenn Hampson
Joyce Ogburn
Those promoting creation science / ID used language such as “even the scientists disagree whether evolution is real.” They would take out of context and cite a statement that illustrated a point of disagreement but the discord wasn’t about the fact of evolution but rather a different point that was not revealed by the citer. Another tactic was to place doubt on the evidence of evolution. One book said that a tooth is a tooth and you can’t distinguish difference in species by teeth, which is patently false. You can’t have evolution of an organ like the eye because it is so perfect and there are no intermediaries. But there are intermediary forms, and all sorts of vision/sensing in nature.
The arguments were made to undermine scientific evidence and process while producing no systematic or verifiable evidence to support their claims. The rigor of science was absent, but the power of disinformation was palpable and persuasive.
Joyce
Sent from my iPad
> On Apr 7, 2022, at 2:38 PM, David Wojick <dwo...@craigellachie.us> wrote:
>
> Thanks Joyce. Re your "There are campaigns to spread false information in science in an attempt to derail or undermine mainstream science, play on fears and concerns, denigrate certain people or groups of people, mislead or cast doubt on the science, etc. Perhaps the context of where and how this plays out is important to the conversation."
Joyce Ogburn
On Apr 7, 2022, at 3:06 PM, Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org> wrote:
Glenn Hampson
Another way that disinformation gets elevated is thorough our own naïveté regarding public debates. When we put truth and disinformation on the same stage, the false equivalency we create hurts truth and helps untruth. Bill Nye fell into this trap in 2013-ish when he debated prominent creationist minister Ken Ham on stage. Ham won, evolution lost. Today, many other science mis/disinformation actors use the same technique—Joe Rogan, Fox, etc.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Apr 7, 2022, at 3:59 PM, Joyce Ogburn <ogbu...@appstate.edu> wrote:
>
> I can go back to my knowledge of creation science and intelligent design as a case in point.
Joyce Ogburn
Joyce
Sent from my iPad
>
> Full House (Stephen Jay Gould) and/or The Blind Watchmaker (Richard Dawkins) truly ought to be required reading in high school. Both are excellent primers on evolution and both discuss this eye trope in detail.
Biagioli, Mario
Yes, Joyce, I agree that they do use those strategies of displacement that you describe.
(Robert Proctor in Agnotology and Naomi Oreskes in Merchants of doubt show plenty of examples of that, up to the global warming debate I find their analysis convincing but wants to add an additional recent element of the doubters’ approach: Hint to a cover-up, like: Biden never wanted you to see this (and, actually, hurry up because “they” will take it down as soon as they can….” Whether this counts for conspiracy or conspiracy-aiding, the goal seems to be the same: cast the scientists (or whomever) as actively withholding or try to erase evidence that you should have and that ‘they’ (the fringe lunatics) are working as hard as possible to make sure you get a chance to see this evidence that has been produce in part by your tax moneis. It is a special kind of conspiracy that tries to win by establishing a good will with the reader, while trashing the motives of the producers of what they see as over-the-top claims political opponents. If the move from content to motives/values works, then you are in a win-win situation because you are effectively saying that content does not matter, even though the motives of the opponents are beyond despicable.
Ciao
Mario Biagioli
From: Joyce Ogburn <ogbu...@appstate.edu>
Date: Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 3:59 PM
To: David Wojick <dwo...@craigellachie.us>
Cc: Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>, Biagioli, Mario <biag...@law.ucla.edu>, The Open Scholarship Initiative <osi20...@googlegroups.com>, Mel DeSart <des...@uw.edu>, Simon Linacre <slin...@gmail.com>, ric...@gedye.plus.com <ric...@gedye.plus.com>
Subject: Re: [External] RE: "Scientists must be free to communicate without politicians’ spin"
Biagioli, Mario
From:
osi20...@googlegroups.com <osi20...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Biagioli, Mario <biag...@law.ucla.edu>
Date: Monday, April 8, 2024 at 9:17 AM
To: Joyce Ogburn <ogbu...@appstate.edu>, David Wojick <dwo...@craigellachie.us>
Cc: Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>, The Open Scholarship Initiative <osi20...@googlegroups.com>, Mel DeSart <des...@uw.edu>, Simon Linacre <slin...@gmail.com>, ric...@gedye.plus.com <ric...@gedye.plus.com>
Subject: Re: [External] RE: "Scientists must be free to communicate without politicians’ spin"
Yes, Joyce, I agree that they do use those strategies of displacement that you describe. (Robert Proctor in Agnotology and Naomi Oreskes in Merchants of doubt show plenty of examples of that, up to the global warming debate)
I find their analysis convincing but wants to add an additional recent element of the doubters’ approach: Hint to a cover-up, like: Biden never wanted you to see this (and, actually, hurry up because “they” – the deep state?--will take it down as soon as they can….” We are doing our best to keep it open but eventually it will be shut down.
Whether this counts for conspiracy or conspiring to conspire, the goal seems to be the same: cast the scientists (or whomever you do not like) as actively withholding or try to erase evidence that you should have the right to see. So those who some would call fringe lunatics are not only smart and knowledgeable but working as hard as possible for you, to make sure you get a chance to see this evidence that has been produce in part by your tax moneis. It is a special kind of conspiracy that tries to win by establishing a good will with the reader, while trashing the motives of the producers of what they see as over-the-top claims by bad actors & political opponents.
If the move from content to motives or values does work, then you are in a win-win situation because you are effectively saying that content does not matter. The motives of the opponents are beyond despicable, but some clarity – clarity about the misdeed – can still be had if you know who to talk to. This is more than ‘Spinning” in the sense that spinning is not just something that happens, but kind of spin is ingrained in the whole logic and goals of that discourse.
Sorry to be so cynical so early in the week. Ciao a todos
Mario Biagioli
From:
Joyce Ogburn <ogbu...@appstate.edu>
Date: Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 3:59 PM
To: David Wojick <dwo...@craigellachie.us>
Cc: Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>, Biagioli, Mario <biag...@law.ucla.edu>, The Open Scholarship Initiative <osi20...@googlegroups.com>, Mel DeSart <des...@uw.edu>, Simon Linacre <slin...@gmail.com>, ric...@gedye.plus.com <ric...@gedye.plus.com>
Subject: Re: [External] RE: "Scientists must be free to communicate without politicians’ spin"
I can go back to my knowledge of creation science and intelligent design as a case in point.
Those promoting creation science / ID used language such as “even the scientists disagree whether evolution is real.” They would take out of context and cite a statement that illustrated a point of disagreement but the discord wasn’t about the fact of evolution
but rather a different point that was not revealed by the citer. Another tactic was to place doubt on the evidence of evolution. One book said that a tooth is a tooth and you can’t distinguish difference in species by teeth, which is patently false. You can’t
have evolution of an organ like the eye because it is so perfect and there are no intermediaries. But there are intermediary forms, and all sorts of vision/sensing in nature.
The arguments were made to undermine scientific evidence and process while producing no systematic or verifiable evidence to support their claims. The rigor of science was absent, but the power of disinformation was palpable and persuasive.
Joyce
Sent from my iPad
> On Apr 7, 2022, at 2:38 PM, David Wojick <dwo...@craigellachie.us> wrote:
>
> Thanks Joyce. Re your "There are campaigns to spread false information in science in an attempt to derail or undermine mainstream science, play on fears and concerns, denigrate certain people or groups of people, mislead or cast doubt on the science, etc.
Perhaps the context of where and how this plays out is important to the conversation."
>
> "Where and how" is indeed important. We still do not have an example of such a campaign. What I see being labeled as disinformation is simply disagreement in the context of science intensive policy debates.
>
> David
>
> On Apr 6, 2022, at 7:38 PM, Joyce Ogburn <ogbu...@appstate.edu> wrote:
>
> There are campaigns to spread false information in science in an attempt to derail or undermine mainstream science, play on fears and concerns, denigrate certain people or groups of people, mislead or cast doubt on the science, etc. Perhaps the context of
where and how this plays out is important to the conversation.
--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit
https://groups.google.com/g/osi2016-25.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/BYAPR13MB4280CAEBD1084DA886D323A9E13D2%40BYAPR13MB4280.namprd13.prod.outlook.com.