Correcting misinformation, however, isn't as simple as presenting people with true facts. When someone reads views from the other side, they will create counterarguments that support their initial viewpoint, bolstering their belief of the misinformation. Retracting information does not appear to be very effective either. Lewandowsky and colleagues published two papers in 2011 that showed a retraction, at best, halved the number of individuals who believed misinformation.
Combating misinformation has proved to be especially difficult in certain scientific areas such as climate science. Despite countless findings to the contrary, a large portion of the population doesn't believe that scientists agree on the existence of human-caused climate change, which affects their willingness to seek a solution to the problem, according to a 2011 study in Nature Climate Change. (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.)
"Misinformation is inhibiting public engagement in climate change in a major way," says Edward Maibach, director of the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University and author of the Nature article, as well as a commentary that accompanied the recent article in PSPI by Lewandowsky and colleagues. Although virtually all climate scientists agree that human actions are changing the climate and that immediate action must be taken, roughly 60 percent of Americans believe that no scientific consensus on climate change exists.
"This is not a random event," Maibach says. Rather, it is the result of a concerted effort by a small number of politicians and industry leaders to instill doubt in the public. They repeat the message that climate scientists don't agree that global warming is real, is caused by people or is harmful. Thus, the message concludes, it would be premature for the government to take action and increase regulations.
To counter this effort, Maibach and others are using the same strategies employed by climate change deniers. They are gathering a group of trusted experts on climate and encouraging them to repeat simple, basic messages. It's difficult for many scientists, who feel that such simple explanations are dumbing down the science or portraying it inaccurately. And researchers have been trained to focus on the newest research, Maibach notes, which can make it difficult to get them to restate older information. Another way to combat misinformation is to create a compelling narrative that incorporates the correct information, and focuses on the facts rather than dispelling myths—a technique called "de-biasing."
Although campaigns to counteract misinformation can be difficult to execute, they can be remarkably effective if done correctly. A 2009 study found that an anti-prejudice campaign in Rwanda aired on the country's radio stations successfully altered people's perceptions of social norms and behaviors in the aftermath of the 1994 tribally based genocide of an estimated 800,000 minority Tutsi. Perhaps the most successful de-biasing campaign, Maibach notes, is the current near-universal agreement that tobacco smoking is addictive and can cause cancer. In the 1950s smoking was considered a largely safe lifestyle choice—so safe that it was allowed almost everywhere and physicians appeared in ads to promote it. The tobacco industry carried out a misinformation campaign for decades, reassuring smokers that it was okay to light up. Over time opinions began to shift as overwhelming evidence of ill effects was made public by more and more scientists and health administrators.
The most effective way to fight misinformation, ultimately, is to focus on people's behaviors, Lewandowsky says. Changing behaviors will foster new attitudes and beliefs.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
90 Comments
Add CommentNot to defend "birther" idiocy, but it's funny how Scientific American writers never seem to notice Democratic falsehoods.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBias indeed.
The mistake is in believing that some people think this because of some kind of factual evidence (or lack of); They think it merely because they don't like Democrats - African American Democrats in particular. At least get that fact straight.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome of these comments are simultaneously entertaining and sad in their irony.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou believe that ridiculous theory for the same reason that everyone else believes in their own crazy theories: a mix of lack of information (or bad information) and egocentrism. Simply because you think so does not make it a fact; and I think that everyone out there who does not hate African American Democrats would agree.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisalan6302,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou failed to include some of the paranoid conspiracy theories about JFK, UFOs, Area 57, and Princess Diana.
I´ts funny, I think Evolutionist and creationist are using the same techniques against each other position, getting prestigious or authorized people repeating everywhere simple ideas to try to "correct" misinformation from the other party.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy don´t they just admit there is a probability of being right o wrong. Scientific history has proved theories can stand a long time, only to crumble to evidence later.
I don't think it is a 'concerted effort' of censorship but censureship IS a problem. I just read about a PhD who finally after being FORCED by his professor to repeat the class in summer school , even though he was an A student , due to the fact his work dared to question the intents and effects of professors and their 'beliefs'. A belief is what is ACCEPTED by the majority and it seems in many cases in the education system tenured professors become a BIG problem with their grant monies being tied to the students 'output' and if the student doesn't wish to become a cog in the professors wheel he is a 'peg that needs to be hammered down' as in this article in which the author believes since the scientists AGREE then it must be true , whereas one doesn't need to accept things because someone has 'proven' them to be true. IE: Vioxx and thalidomide.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is not the case that a rational opinion is identical with an opinion held by most (if not all) rational people. Rational people would do well to remember that when they are seeking to control what people believe. It was after all the same 'scientific community' that once accepted as fact 'the aether', phlogiston, the healthful benefits of smoking and the safety of dioxins while promoting the dangers of epidemic bird flu, new variant CJD, and AIDS that have entirely failed to decimate the world's population as predicted, that now seeks to convince us all of the 'facts' of 'global warming'. En masse human beings have an extremely long memory! Can anyone really be surprised if people are not exactly inclined to believe what they're told?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRodrigo,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis could apply to a wide variety of subjects, but not this. There is not the slightest possibility that the Earth is 6000 years old, and all that trash.
While I generally agree with your idea (everyone, especially scientists, should keep an open mind to alternative ideas), you chose a very, very bad example.
Transfusion , is another example. CONTRARY to what everyone believes , transfusions kill you , as opposed to extending your life like they have always believed. In this case , therefore , NOT adhering to accepted beliefs , would have saved MANY lives ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAcoyauh2,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you buy into an all powerful creator-deity, you can presume that anything could have been done. Maybe 6,000 years ago something was created that appears exactly as a billions-year-old system. It doesn't strike me as likely or sensible, but in the case of an all-powerful being, anything is possible.
When Obama's birth was first questioned I knew if one of your parents was a U.S. citizen the point was moot anyway I quickly went to site that had post his certificate. It looked just like mine and since we were born on the same year I figured theres no story here, no problem. My problem now is the certificate shown today is the third different certificate thats been posted as being his. My only thought is that one of the earlier posted ones was posted by somebody else trying to cover for Obama. Lets face the fact that Obama himself has milked this issue by delaying releasing of his certificate as long as he could to make political points, note the same issue was brought up about McCain and he released his immediatly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisironjustice ,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think you confused the word 'transfusion' with the words 'myocardial infarction'.
Care to be specific? What Democratic falsehoods?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think there is an important difference between general misconceptions (such as superstitions, or mass hysteria) and orchestrated, politically-motivated campaigns intended to disinform the public. The "birther" campaign is a fraud perpetrated by the propagandists at Fox "Fake" News.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientific American is subject to fact fudging...it's called political correctness.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs an atheist I'm amused by those who attack Creationists but not a president that worships a dead-guy-on-a-stick. Ignorance is ignorance. Christianity is BALONEY...does SA ever come out and say that?
Race and intelligence...don't even go there. Better to keep the rose colored glasses on.
There's lots of areas in which we all ignore or twist facts. It's far from being just 'the other guy'.
lamorpha: "If you buy into an all powerful creator-deity, you can presume that anything could have been done. Maybe 6,000 years ago something was created that appears exactly as a billions-year-old system. It doesn't strike me as likely or sensible, but in the case of an all-powerful being, anything is possible.'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExactly. This is why the 'Christian lite' group are off the mark. As soon as one accepts that a god figure can nudge an atom then everything about matter and energy is void...it's just an illusion. Believing in a god but not accepting the possibility of Creationism is like being 'a little bit preganant'.
Worldview. The individual (or groups) worldview is central to the discussion. We of a scientific persuasion often tend to place our rational view as having more 'truth' than others, such as 'religion' based views. Does it? Is there a single true reality? We live in a world that we have created by our beliefs. If the base of those beliefs is broad enough then other 'realities' are of no concern. A thousand years ago, an individual living in what is now America had a very different worldview that effectively described his reality. He did not need to know that the universe was formed in a 'Big Bang', or understand Linnaean taxonomy to grasp the functions within his world. We catalog and place labels on things we observe to organize them to work within our own worldview.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thislamorpa,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBig maybe here...
There is a more credible version of creationism, where the 'creator' sets up the machinery, the general stage, for the progression from big-bang to some ultimate goal is set in motion. That would be harder to argue, if you're into that.
But that childish US Evangelists' version of creationism (the 6000 years-old one) is so ludicrous, it doesn't even deserve discussion, IMO...
Acoyauh2,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree. I still have a hard time with the old invisible creator-deity things myself, but that's a pure and unprovable (either way) faith-based belief that is either 'true' or 'false' within any individual's mind.
Yes, we are all biased. Fact. But its amazing to me how particularly my ultra-right and ultra-left friends both do almost no scrutiny to avoid bias. This is also true for my religious friends. It is hard to avoid bias but easy to detect a lack of effort to avoid bias. As scientists, discerning bias is suppose to be our mission #1. At least we can look for the effort.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI like how it talks about barrack obama's birth certificate and that he was born in 1961 because i did not know that this was very creative of a blog
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are right, there are creationist that believe the 6.000 years timeframe, not all of them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour argument is like saying "the man comes from the monkey and all that trash".
The universe is so mysterious, remember the gravitational fields, I was shocked the first time i was aware science havent found a theory to that matter. So there still a chance "all that trash" could be true.
I thought I was on the Scientific American website, but it looks like I'm on some Social Science or philosophy web site.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSilly me.
" It was after all the same 'scientific community' that once accepted as fact 'the aether', phlogiston, the healthful benefits of smoking and the safety of dioxins while promoting the dangers of epidemic bird flu, new variant CJD, and AIDS that have entirely failed to decimate the world's population as predicted, that now seeks to convince us all of the 'facts' of 'global warming'."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, it's really not the same scientific community. There are various different issues with the several red herrings that your say were scientific theories supported equally strongly as global warming is supported. In some cases (such as "ether"), the theory was a natural extension of what we knew already was the case in other circumstances, but the natural progress of science ended up discarding the theory as unnecessary. In other cases ("the helpful benefits of smoking"), you're confusing science with an advertising campaign. But in any case, just what do you demand out of science? Science is in the business of generating theories, testing theories, and generating new theories? Since this has been literally going on for centuries, some of the early theories are going to seem ludicrous to a modern observer in comparison with modern theories. But what you seem to want to require us to reject all scientific theories, since science itself has found some of its theories to be wanting when subjected to science's own process of testing and revision.
Global warming is as sound as any scientific theory out there. I wonder why anybody anywhere thinks putting the phrase in scare quotes is sufficient to reject the well-observed fact that different gases radiate infrared waves at different rates.
And on cue we find people falling over themselves to show how relevant this story is. There is geojellyroll who somehow always manages to find a way to indulge in Christian bashing. Though they really don't apply here he likes to spew his very narrow and ignorant views of Christianity. Then you have G. Karst who seem to be under the impression that climate science and that the idea of anthropomorphic climate change is something new that hasn't already been debated for decades.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Not to defend "birther" idiocy, but it's funny how Scientific American writers never seem to notice Democratic falsehoods.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBias indeed."
One possible form of bias is not noticing that both parties are equally guilty of prevarication. Another possible form of bias is presuming that both parties are equally guilty of prevarication, and persisting to this belief in the absence of supporting evidence.
Or to put it another way, it's easy to point a figure and scream "bias." But that doesn't mean that Romney isn't a bigger liar than Obama. You're going to have to work harder than that.
Wow. Scientific American and birther nonsense galore.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this" My problem now is the certificate shown today is the third different certificate thats been posted as being his. My only thought is that one of the earlier posted ones was posted by somebody else trying to cover for Obama. "
Or maybe the State of Hawaii has changed the form of the birth certificate? You understand what's going on here, right? When a request is made for a certificate, the state publishes one. It doesn't have millions of paper certificates on files. It has certified birth records. So a birth certificate for a person born in the 1960s could look different if you're looking at a copy published 20 years later or 40 years later, or what have you.
"Lets face the fact that Obama himself has milked this issue by delaying releasing of his certificate as long as he could to make political points, note the same issue was brought up about McCain and he released his immediatly."
This is just silliness, unless you think Obama is "scoring political points" by letting his political opponents make fools of themselves.
Obama never kept his birth records secret. But it was always clear that this kind of bizarre strategy had more than a little to do with Obama's race. From the very start we knew that there was a birth announcement for President Obama in the local newspapers in Hawaii. The accusation never made any sense.
As for McCain, nobody ever tried to put together a high-visibility campaign disqualifying him for higher office based on the fact that he was born on a military base in Panama. Your attempt at false equivalence fails.
hanmeng - I mostly see a difference in magnitude. Falsehoods on the popular right are too often complete detatchment from reality. If the actual value of something is 100, with one side spining it as 80, and the other as 1 million, there is more to say then just, "both sides are guilty of distortion". Don't muddy the waters by confusing expected partisan bias with completely fabricated fantasy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAvoiding bias is hard, if not impossible. Being skeptical (and not simply dismissive) is also hard. However, no matter how intelligent you are or what your politics are, you're subject to being tricked and manipulated, particularly by your own self. Emotions, upbringing, situation, presentation, culture and genetics are also guaranteed to play into your decisions. Anybody who thinks his beliefs are purely based on logic is kidding himself. I strongly suggest _The Age of Propaganda_ as one starting point for understanding human decision-making.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFunny, right-wingers say the same thing about the left, that the left is utterly detached from reality. The big problem, as the author of the article hinted at, is that we can't even agree on the same facts. All I have to do is deny that your sources have any validity and/or have been compromised and we're at an impasse. This is what goes on between Israel and Palestine. They're so invested in their own narrative that when it's threatened, they simply claim that the other side is making everything up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis country is rapidly decaying into this kind of behavior, and I'm very much afraid it will devolve into violence when people realize they'll never convince the other side how evil and horrible they are, and decide that they'll just have to be eliminated instead.
If we can't even agree on the basic facts, we can't get anywhere. When Fukushima was melting down, I had a birther housemate who spent most of her copious free time reading conspiracy websites. Her science education is pathetic, and her reasoning skills are poor. But her IQ is 120, well above average. She'd report info regarding Fukushima from her friends and I would tell her, "I used to be a -physicist.- I've had nuclear radiation safety training. This stuff is BS." But she preferred the opinions of her wacko survivalist friend with no college education, "just to be safe." I ultimately gave up, thinking perhaps she's an adrenaline junkie (there were other behaviors that led me to this belief too), and getting worked up over internet conspiracy rumors was a safe way to feed her habit. She even followed this economics conspiracist who has been predicting that Obama will "nationalize everyone's 401ks" for the last two years. She said, "he's never been wrong." However, none of the predictions I took note of has ever come true. But it doesn't change her mind one bit.
Ok, I'll cop a mea culpa. I did indeed find specifics in your very general statements that really weren't there.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't disagree with what you are saying, but I was trying to make the point that just throwing up your hands and saying "everyone is biased" isn't useful.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do suppose my thoughts that things can be measured and objectively compared does ignore one point of the article (that facts really don't matter for how people hold opinions), but I was trying to speak to the specific comment.
Before deriving methods to ensure that "scientific" claims edge out others, it is crucial to make sure those "scientific" assertions are valid.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd, frankly, "science" has a horrendous track record. They handle it largely by refusing to talk about it or spinning it, saying, "Well, at least we're willing to admit we're wrong!"
The insistence that the moon had to have been caused by a huge body colliding with the earth, tearing the moon out. The idential proportions of various isotopes on both earth and moon was absolute "proof". It made utter "logical" sene that if the isotopes are identical a body must have split the moon from the earth. Then it was pointed out that, if another body hit the earth, there would have to be traces of its isotopes, making the smaples different.
In the same way, all the claims of phenomena following "power laws". Simply because the logarithms of the phenomena "form straight lines". But logarithms "squash" data so even random data can look like a straight line. Or Gary Wells' technique of "identifying" criminals by looking for a full minute at full blow up photos of suspects. The details can lead an eyewitness to question their certainty, even if they're right. Too, the sheer tedium can lead them to cut out before trying to make an identification. Accounts described the technique as doing eveyrthing from "increasing correct identifications", which never happened, to "decreasing false identifications" Face it, if someone gets so bored they don't try to make an identification, they can't make a wrong one! And remember the "experiment" to "prove" cell phones cause accidents. The "researchers" "defined" a cell phone as "causing" an accidnet if it the phone was used within ten minutes of an accident. So you can take a phone call at home, leave your phone home, get into your car, then be plowed into by the drugged out son of a politico and your using the cell phone would be blamed! No warning on thalidomide. No warnings on fen-phen. Not contesting the claim of banned weapons systems in Iraq. All patent cases where "science" proved to be a fraud.
And consider the article. Again touting the current bloodthirsty agenda, to deny that vaccines cause autism. They claim it was completely "debunked", but the only "proof" that the claim is untrue is that "the original study" linking autism to the MMR vaccine was "ultimately" deemed fraudulent. Such a carefully misleading use of language! "The original study"? Then there were other studies? Were they found to be fraudulent? Or were there no other studies? Why not? Note, too, the careful "explanation" for mistrust of vaccines to be maintained, that someone becamse famous in their neighborhood for spreading it. Then why do the others hold to the belief? They didn't become famous in their neighborhoods spreading it! They heard from someone else! This may cause this to be removed, but this is a characteristically misleading "explanation", intended only to appeal to those too dim to be able to think it all the way through! And notice the scurrilous technique of "validating" vaccines not causing autism by linking it with someone more generally accepted, global warming, leading the gullible to think that if they don't trust vaccines then they don't believe in global warming! The refusal to "argue" the "safety" of vaccines on their own!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the end, the lie exonerating vaccines sounds like a case of carefully constructed verbiage. They said carbohydrates cause weight gain, then they said it was the toppings people put on them. They said not to eat salt, then they admitted that eating a ton of salt a day can harm you. Notice the "characterization" of the vaccine issue quoted at the beginning of the article, "vaccines cause autism". One can just see, twenty five years from now, the admission, "We didn't mean that MMR doesn't cause autism, we meant that it's false to say all vaccines cause autism! Therefore, we didn't lie!"
And, as is so often the case, a crucial facet goes largely unaddressed. If the truth is so reliable, why can't it take hold the way claims denounced by "science" as false do? They're both, after all, assertions, why does one type of assertion, the "false" one always manage to win over the "true" one in public opinion? If people believe "false" statements because they become famous in their neighborhoods spreading them, why don't they spread "true" statements in their neighborhood and get famous that way? In the same way, if "hating America" is just a motivation preached to Muslims, why can't the New World Order get "love America" to become as much appreacited? Why do they want to "hate" America? They don't want to, but America has done so much to be hated! In the same way, "science" has done nothing but prove it's not reliable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJulian, you are making an error of misattribution, as often is done by individuals criticizing "science". The scientific method is a process which allows consistent findings to be extracted from noisy, complicated data and accumulated over time. The track record of scientific achievement is frankly, quite amazing. Our use of the internet to discuss this topic should be sufficient evidence for this claim.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut this idea must be taken in stride. In order for scientific investigations to advance knowledge there needs to be an acceptance that specific findings do not always "prove" very general claims. And that specific claims made by specific scientists, do not always reflect a nunanced, or accurate view-point of even the current evidence, much less the error associated with cutting-edge science--which by nature of being "cutting-edge" has may not have accounted for all the variables which future scientists will discover.
Also, I'd love to see some evidence for the claim that:
"the "false" one always manage to win over the "true" one in public opinion"
But I guess if you so easily believe this, then it may be a waste of time to explain the scientific process to you afterall...
For instance? Give me a Democratic falshood as outragouse as the birther thing!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegarding the article at hand, I wonder how effective it will be to have "a group of trusted experts on climate ... repeat simple, basic messages".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe examples of campaigns listed above are not necessarily demonstrative that this strategy will work. Also, the problem of "climate denialism" is not so much an issue of people not believing that the earth's average temperature is changing, it is in part a symptom of a broader lack of knowledge about the topic, or even an ability to distinguish between reasonable and unreasonable positions. For example, the opposite extreme exists, where numerous environmentalists hold a position which is equivalent to ludditism: calling for us to shut down manufacturing, and chemical production and modern agriculture practices--you name it.
The simple fact is that our society so heavily depends on processes which may be harmful to our environment that solutions to these problems must be thorough, nuanced and flexible (i.e. strategies which do not work can be identified and discarded). Simple messages may simply scare people, rather than educating them about how to actively support the appropriate kinds of reactions to major global problems.
A good example of where this goes wrong is poverty: many people in the west believe that poverty is a problem. Great! We're half way there... Except, simply giving money away to the corrupt leaders of poor, undereducated, underdeveloped nations doesn't deal with poverty. So why is this practice still so prevalent and why do so few individuals have the wherewithal to appropriately evaluate whether their donations are effective?
Those who are determined to pretend another notoriously never find it necessary to actually appeal to truth. They'll accuse another of being wrong just by how they spelled their name.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiszstansfi, for example, goes through the motions of "taking me to task" for saying, "the 'false' one always manages to win over the 'true' one in public opinion". Anmd zstansfi challenges me to prove that.
That's what this article is about!
That's what the general opine of the article is!
That supposedly "true" statements made by "science" rarely manage to be accepted over purportedly "false" statements!
If zstansfi has a problem with that presumption, they should take it up with Carrie Arnold!
And, note, again, the pretense of "needing" to "explain" the methodology of "science" to me. Talking about "extracting" and "accum,ulating" data. And, although this may cause this to be removed, the doggerel, "specific claims made by specific scientists, [sic] do not always reflect a nuanced, [sic] or accurate viewpoint of even the current evidence, much less the error associated with cutting-edge science". That has nothing to do with "defining" that using a cell phone within ten minutes of an accident makes the cell phone the direct cause of the accident!
And, frankly, what advances? Even as the internet. For all the "theories" about electromagnetics and so on, what is the proof that there aren't really tiny aliens moving energy around and arranging symbols on the screen as you uinput them? A book printed with claims of "scientific" advances does not constitute "proof". "Scientists" insisting, "Believe this is the way I say", are not "proof". There is no proof that there aren't really tiny aliens moving energy into computers and arranging images on the screen as you input them.
The one issue that no one seems to address is exactly why so many of us (perhaps all of us?) are prone to believing what we want regardless of the "facts".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere has to have been a considerable evolutionary advantage to the way our brains are wired and how they function since we are the lone end product (survivor, if you like) of a process that saw many species of Homo that did not survive.
What is it about our "belief systems" and the way that our brains seem to operate that conveyed an advantage to our hunter/gatherer ancestors?
Answer that and we might shed some real light on this subject.
De-biasing sounds a lot like re-education. The truth will win out if it is continually presented in a professional and objective manner.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWondering if the distinction between 'scientistic' and 'scientific' is at all useful here ? Also, there is the possibly useful distinction between the scientific method serving as a prime problem-solving tool versus as a problematic decision-making tool. Problematic because humans, who are really often not all that scientific - and often are instead scientistic - require human solutions , whatever they are.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot trying to start an argument (as if anyone here needs a reason) but, not only do I disagree with you that we are the "end product", I would submit that there Is No End to the process.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, especially on this site, but elsewhere too, don't even attempt to add to the discussion by introducing opinions or studies disagreeing with the accepted rote. The denizens and trolls will pounce on and curse you with glee and Never consider or even look at contrary ideas or research. In many cases, SA has become no more than an opinion piece for the consensus.
Democratic falsehoods such as? Guilt by implication?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this48 comments and counting, and no one has mentioned Cass Sunstein, former Harvard law professor, and now head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (read: Ministry of Propaganda) in the Obama Whitehouse.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://home.uchicago.edu/~csunstei/
In 2008, an academic paper co-written by Sunstein
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585
proposes government action to counter the spread of Conspiracy Theories. From Page 15 of the paper:
<<
II. Governmental Responses
What can government do about conspiracy theories? Among the things it can do,
what should it do? We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1)
Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind
of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. (3) Government
might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy
theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in
counterspeech. (5) Government might engage in informal communication with such
parties, encouraging them to help. Each instrument has a distinctive set of potential
effects, or costs and benefits, and each will have a place under imaginable conditions.
However, our main policy idea is that government should engage in cognitive infiltration
of the groups that produce conspiracy theories, which involves a mix of (3), (4) and (5).
>>
Here is an article from Salon magazine for those of you who may not wish to take the time to read the original article:
http://www.salon.com/2010/01/15/sunstein_2/
Here is Professor Sunstein, proudly owning up to the paper he had published four years previously:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OIiOztc52g
This article is right out of the Sunstein playbook, devoid of actual facts and full of logical fallacies. In fact, facts are no longer at issue. "The most effective way to fight misinformation, ultimately, is to focus on people's behaviors, Lewandowsky says. Changing behaviors will foster new attitudes and beliefs."
Goodbye Who, What, Where, When, Why and How. Hello "successful de-biasing campaigns".
Sounds good and he seems the kind of bloke you want as a blogger.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately I understand sweet all about his science.
Technical paleontology and evolutionary biology can be hard for nonspecialists to understand, yes. But I, at least, think that he does a good job of explaining the terms for the masses. Then again, I am a specialist-in-training, so I'm not the best person to ask.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDemocratic "falsehoods" versus Republican ones were clearly illuminated in the recent debate. Obama "lied" by claiming Romney had proposed $5 trillion in tax cuts, which even Forbes stated was true. It became a "lie" when Romney denied having made that claim. Romney lied when he stated half of all green projects funded under the stimulus had gone bankrupt. No stat anywhere on planet earth verifies this. It is an indefensible, inexplicable falsehood.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisObama "lied" when he stated he had proposed $4 trillion in expenditure cuts, but he included the drawdown in Afghanistan to get that figure. His opponent in 2008 clearly stated there should be no timeline, so it is an Obama choice, but since he had already decided that, it somehow no longer counts. Romney lied when he said his healthcare plan covers preconditions. It does not. It covers preconditions as long as you maintain your current coverage, which by definition is NOT a precondition, since this condition existed while you were covered. There is no way to explain how his plan covers preconditions, except that he simply says it does.
Which ones are genuine lies?
A lot of contrary views about scientific ideas come from the simple misunderstanding of the scientific process. Scientific theories do not come about simply because a few scientists have an opinion and voice it in a public place. Instead, they come about from tons of hard work and years of debate in peer-reviewed journal articles...Much different than views shared by some talking head on TV.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI know plenty of Republicans who believe in Global Warming and I don't happen know of anyone who disagrees with vaccines. I tried to think of some urban myths exclusive to the Dems but nothing came to mind. Oh, wait. there is the thing about espresso having less caffeine than regular coffee. That and the rumor that Lincoln was a bisexual.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe can and do ban commenters who violate our terms of service, from time to time. Several users are on our radar, not for their views, but for their tone and lack of civility. We will investigate past comments and consider ban requests.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe also delete comments at times that do not advance the discussion in an intelligent, civil manner, as well as those that needlessly bring divisive and acrimonious political issues into a discussion.
Our decisions about commenting on this site have nothing to do with traffic. Ads pay so little online that if you did the math...
Commenting on Scientific American online is a privilege, not a right. The Free Speech clause does not mean that every online space is a free-speech space for everyone in the world. Well-moderated communities have the best discussions. We have not always had the strongest moderation practices. We are trying to do better with extremely limited resources. Gradually, the commenting community here will become more constructive, and we hope you all help whenever you can by reporting comments for abuse and posting comments that discourage toxic behavior. So, just to reiterate: We set the rules. We enforce them.
Well, hanmeng... you just proved the point of the article. Just spout whatever you want without any factual evidence to support or backup your statement... and keep repeating it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thischeers !
Challenge the "fact". For example, the ad hoc explanation that nessies are actually giant seals visiting from the seas. Where is your evidence pointing to Loch Ness seals?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor that matter, where is your evidence that being born in a foreign land to an American parent automatically makes you a foreign citizen?
Where is your evidence that transfusions always kill people? I can see people being killed by the wrong blood, or by blood with contaminants or organisms (HIV anybody?), but all transfusions?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem in the case you are decrying is that this individual has repeatedly destroyed people in competition with him for polical office. He has done this precisely by using information similar to that which he has spent millions of dollars in legal fees to conceal. He is immune to the scruitiny that your likes has failed to pursue. It is amazing that there is little to no information about him, his parents or his mentors that appear to interest you and your ilk whereas you can seem to find miniscule information about George Bush even to the point of being able to find his attendance records for his service in the National Guard. Whereas no one seems to be interested in Mr. Obama's unusual social security number, his attendance records at any school he attended, his acceptance as a "foreign student" at Columbia and the fact that he has a checkered past as a drug abuser. The dismay you express is feigned and myopic. This President has a culture of secrecy unmatched in the history of the Presidency yet you blindly ignore the continuous stream of lies emitted by his administration. The veracity of the birth certificate is viewed in the shadow of the rampant deception and secrecy which is the hallmark of this man. I'm sure Mr. Romney would provide his tax returns if Mr. Obama would reveal his school records, his multiple Socialsecurity numbrs and all of the other information he has spent millions to hide...yes hide.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlmost every college student tries out drugs, and it's all too easy to get addicted (if anything you said was true). Obama is ethically questionable in his drone strike policies, but he's orders of magnitude above Bush the war criminal. Bush authorized the torture of a bunch of random goat herders who got sold to the CIA for terrorism bounties. Obama is black, and knows what he's doing as President (which is more than you could ever say of the Shrub). Is being black worse than pulling dirty campaign tricks (i.e. making war hero John Kerry look like a wuss) and violating human rights with impunity?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt should be noted here that Bush, Cheney, John Yoo, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, and all of the Bush-era war criminals cannot leave this country without getting arrested. Cheney had to cancel a trip to Canada (while the Shrub was in charge, if memory serves) because the Canadians said that they'd arrest him the moment his feet hit the tarmac.
Henri Poincaire said,"Science progresses, funeral by funeral."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe public change in attitude had nothing to do with information and everything to do with revulsion by non-smokers over the stench. Non-smokers just got tired of breathing other peoples' waste products and put their foot down. If getting experts to testify on behalf of something were the answer, we wouldn't have the problem.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem is magic. As children, we get fed when we cry, get presents at Christmas, and generally expect that the universe supplies our wants simply because we want them. Our brains are like a Pentium wired to a 486, wired to an 8088, wired to an Apple II, wired to a Commodore 64, and we let the oldest, most primitive hardware and software filter out changes. So we resist unlearning our infantile intuition that the universe supplies what we want just because we want it. We grow up and become adults who think that tinkering with the evidence can MAKE evolution false, or stop climate change, or make vaccination and transfusions dangerous. We believe that doing some token ceremony can cause God to do things for us (a stance considered equally stupid by atheists and theologians). We believe not talking about death can prevent it. We believe the mere fact we believe something makes it true. In Uncommon Sense, Alan Cromer makes the point that most people never learn to distinguish between the inner world of feelings and the outer world of facts. Indeed, a lot of people assert that making that distinction is unhealthy.
The Internet has made things worse. 9-11 truthers, moon landing deniers and creationists can live in a bubble inhabited only by other people who think like them. They never need to confront alternative ideas at all. Trying to keep abreast of crank ideas these days is like mopping up a tsunami with a Q-tip.
I'm afraid there isn't a solution unless we somehow put decision making authority in the hands of genuinely informed people, and I can't think of a mechanism for doing that that wouldn't rapidly be co-opted by cranks and people with vested interests in denying reality.
Great article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn philosophy, the study of how we know what we know is epistemology. Descartes started with "I think, therefore I am". The idea is that thinking requires a thinker, and that requires existence. It's a compelling argument for the reader. Based on this introduction, the reader is predisposed to believe what follows. Unfortunately, what followed was not terribly compelling if you didn't happen to also hold his various societal and religious beliefs. It's easy to assert that so-and-so is a Nobel Prize winner, therefore, everything she says is correct. Hearing Nobel Prize winners disagree with each other in their shared domain of expertise might dissolution one to science, but it can also offer insights into how the thinking takes place.
One way to do that is to get such a view is to read the 1909 book "Curiosities of the Sky" by Garrett P. Serviss, available for free on the web on Project Gutenberg. He considers a number of cutting edge questions in astronomy, offers several potential solutions, and then places his own bets on them. From the modern perspective, these problems have been solved. It is interesting how often his guesses were dead wrong. It's a compelling exercise to see what was known at the time, and to try to imagine what your own guesses might be.
A more recent example might be the Allen Hills Mars meteorite. Is there really evidence of fossil bacteria or not? I read the article in Science when it came out. It seemed like it might be believable. But some of my chemist and biology friends who had also read it were a good deal more skeptical. Every now and then, more comes out on the story. At least, being wrong on this story won't kill me.
Provide one and let's see how it is received, what is the greatest "falsehood" the lefty have been using to wind you GOP's up?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot just Republican bias: I'm a Dem, and have believed for years that vaccines caused autism -- mostly because it's Big Pharma that has denied it and funded many of the contra studies. If I buy this article, I'm going to have to examine my own disbelief of the Big Pharma studies. Hmmm...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI didn't try drugs, I worked a 40-50 hour week at a National Laboratory and went to nightschool to receive my degree. We didn't have "student loans", my parents died while I was in High School and my grandmother and I had all we could do to rasie my brother and sisters. Perhaps your thinking would be clearer if you had not followd the fools to drugs and instead had a job. It would have made you realize how difficult life is and how unwise it is to have one half of the population support the other half. I have what I have because I worked for it and I strongly object to people who think that they are entitled to what I have earned. Social Justice is NOT taking from one person and giving it someone else.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI could not understand the extent you got beat up over your, provably true, comment #1. That was until I heard Nobel Prize winning economist (a scientist, maybe) Paul Krugman say on the Stephanopoulos show Sunday (about the debate): "Obama only lied about unimportant things, Romney lied about big things". (You can look it up.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI now understand: If you are on the "right side", all behaviors are fair & just. If you are on the "wrong side", all behaviors are dishonest & evil.
If you are a liberal who really believes in Human Caused Global Climate Change, then surpressing scientific descent by blocking others from publication, or hiding data which might point otherwise is not a dishonest act. They really believe this.
If you are a conservative, who really believes in the Sanctity of Life, then forcing others to live as you believe they should is a good & pure deed. They really believe this.
Why do we believe crazy stuff? It's easy to see why: the highest priority is to stay consistent with the narrative in your head, not in seeking "truth". Moral relativism has triumphed.
Evidence to the contrary is no longer reason to question, it is a reason to reject. Evidence consistent with your views is full confirmation, to be accepted without question. The question of how crazy the evidence is, for or against, never comes into play.
I don't know about the rest of you, but it scares the heck out of me about our future.
President Obama's Birth Record was never a factor until he became President Of The United States.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHe has been in Government service for a long time and I myself see this as a lost issue. The issues we do see is the economic failure within this country. Four years has passed, and the issue is worse, and as a honest share of this issue, Pharmaceutical Heroin in the last 4 years played a key role in America's Economic failure. A fact i can prove.
Jobs also is playing a key role in our economic failures...the loss of tax dollars.
President Obama knows he stands a goiod chance of being voted out because he did not get the job done, but we did inherit a $16 Trillion Dollar Debit.
sin, Henry Massingale
All politicians lie. The point is that Obama knows what he's doing (in a good way) and Romney lies to an unprecedented degree. At the debate, he said one true thing: that he'll kill "Sesame Street" by defunding PBS. Read this article for the real kicker on that one:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/04/romney-big-bird-attack-us-jobs_n_1939766.html
It's hilarious.
hanmeng,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo make your point, you might point out a couple Democratic falsehoods. It's a conservative falsehood that we don't listen to such complaints.
I've become somewhat of a political junkie. I have a degree in Math and Physics which I believe, correctly or incorrectly, trained me to think coldly and logically. I wonder about confirmation bias. I understand the concept, but it is unclear to what degree I engage in it. In this article, confirmation bias is defined (described?) as being "more likely to believe a statement if it confirms our preexisting beliefs, a phenomenon." This seems to be an incomplete description. I can change my mind, or view things in a different was, but it takes quite a bit of data for me to do so. I also believe that I go with the best data available on politics, AGW, Barack Obama's place of birth (give me break), Saddam's/Iraq's WMDs (did not believe he had them because there was no solid evidence), neutrinos traveling faster than light or whatever(not enough proof), etc. I encounter people all the time, who are clearly biased, and actively seek outlier data that confirms their beliefs. Still, I have to wonder to which degree am I engaging in confirmation bias. I'm told here that we all do it…I guess I'm open to that idea. Still… But...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn post #73 you replied:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The point is that Obama knows what he's doing (in a good way) and Romney lies to an unprecedented degree."
All I can say is: This kind of proves my point.
But I honestly don't know whether to thank you or run away screaming.
Just move to Sweden. There are fewer career politicians there--more genuine public servants (an oxymoron in this stupid country).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne other observation about your reply to my post #70:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI found it interesting that, although you opened with the statement: "All politicians lie", you said that Romney "lies" but that Obama "knows what he's doing (in a good way)" (post #73).
Why couldn't you just say that Obama lied too? Do you believe that Obama didn't lie or that his lies were OK because they were meant "in a good way"?
I believe that you meant the latter but I don't think it fair to put words in your mouth.
My point about Moral Relativism is that lies from politicians used to be considered, at least, bad form but now it seems to depend more on which party they are coming from - mine or not mine.
I believe that the reason that most politicians now lie to us so readily (and both sides do) is that they understand this and don't feel they will suffer the consequences of lying. We feed this every time we accept a lie as OK just because we agree with the liar's party affiliation.
We can not complain about liars, I believe these are self inflicted wounds.
Oh, they both lie. Obama lies mostly in dimplomatic situation , where telling the idiots exactly what you feel about them is downright stupid. For example, Obama whips up fake smiles when he meets with Putin, even though it's clear that they can only stand each other because each one is the "devil you know" to the other.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn the other hand, Romney just can't stop lying about whatever he talks about.
There are things that are kind of "unprovable" and concerning which there are powerful interests on one side or another. You can't legislate curiosity and doubt out of existence, no matter how much it would help your ideological position if you could. Moreover, attempts to do so raise further curiosity and doubt if they are heavy-handed and authoritarian. The movement to marginalize and stigmatize critics of AGW, for example, have probably given skepticism more power.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is the world that is and the world we might were here in its place but harassment and name-calling isn't going to make it happen. Skepticism and doubt can be a good thing. With all the scam artist, hoaxers, manipulators and ideological fanatics out there skepticism and doubt are the last line of resistance.
There is much work on the social amplification of risk where relatively trivial risks are blown out of all proportion when the potential, if rare, consequences are serious. Scientists will almost always leave a gap for uncertainty in their conclusions which leaves the door open to someone to highlight that uncertainty. People are very ready to be warned of risks especially where they themselves are unable to personally evaluate the risk factors. It then becomes an issue of trust in the sources of information. Government has low levels of trust due to the clear self-interest in their proclamations. Climate change pundits have low levels of trust because of the mis-use of data, spurious extrapolation of selective local or regional data to a global scale and exaggeration for effect to 'prove' their point. Anyone trying to counter their arguments needs a significantly higher level of trust to overcome the cynical suspicion that they themselves have a self-interest - facts alone are insufficient. And the arguments/discussion required greatly exceeds the attention span of most people who might disseminate the information around the dinner table or at the bar - and of any journalist who might report on it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople believe what they want to believe no matter what the facts may be; generally these beliefs, true or false, fit in with the worldview of the individual and are shared by others like them. This is NOT true only of uneducated rednecks and Tea Party wingnuts, but of prestigious scientists as well. The most respected professionals in the field would not accept the theories of Copernicus or Darwin or even the role of bacteria in disease or plate tectonics when they were first proposed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you saying that ceationism should be considered as on the same par as the theory of evolution? Creation theory can never be tested. The hypothesis that an intelligent being created everything will never be proved. On the other hand, we see evolution in effect every day in that viruses mutate, the fruit fly provides us with ample evidence and on and on. I may personally believe in an intelligent creator, but I could never ever - nor would I want to - try to prove it. As for bias, please read The Republican War on Science. It leans left, but the cases it presents are irrefutable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOK. Let's assume you are right. Think of what this involves: an 18 year old girl living in Hawaii has a child with a Kenyan man. She/they decide that some day this child will be president. In order to be president in America, it is advantageous to be born white and male. But OK. They've got a mixed race child.....so they decide he shown be born in Kenya. Meanwhile the mother sends a birth announcement to Hawaii newspapers, manufacturs a certificate of live birth at a respected Hawaiin hospital. After the baby's birth, the mother marries an Indonesian man, moves there and enrolls her son in the only type of school that meets her academic standards. The school has a muslim leaning staff. Wise choice right?? Never would have had happened if she really wanted her child to be president.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOr - alternative theory - Obama is a grown man and recognizes that he wants to be president. He writes a memoir telling how his mother wanted him to be familiar with all the worlds great religions and thus takes him to synagoges, mosques, unitarian and other christian churches. Hardly something you would want to bring up if you were trying to fit in enough to be president. Then he manages to contact the hospital in which he was born and arrange to have a birth certificate printed up. At the same time, he goes into the microfiche records from 1961 and somehow inserts a birth announcment into the archives of the newspapers. Wow.
Please tell me your theory on this. I am still waiting for someone on the right to explain how all this would have worked. Thanks.
...or religious falsehoods of every kind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMost of the comments on this article seem to have been political.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMore interesting are the last paragraphs of the article.
“Perhaps the most successful de-biasing campaign, Maibach notes, is the current near-universal agreement that tobacco smoking is addictive and can cause cancer.
In the 1950s smoking was considered a largely safe lifestyle choice—so safe that it was allowed almost everywhere and physicians appeared in ads to promote it.
The tobacco industry carried out a misinformation campaign for decades, reassuring smokers that it was okay to light up.
Over time opinions began to shift as overwhelming evidence of ill effects was made public by more and more scientists and health administrators.
The most effective way to fight misinformation, ultimately, is to focus on people's behaviors, Lewandowsky says.
Changing behaviors will foster new attitudes and beliefs.”
Matching Mr. Lewandowsky’s advice with Mr. Maibach’s notes, one can ask how people’s behaviors were changed with respect to smoking.
Part of the cause is in the behavior of life insurance companies who, having scientifically studied mortality, came to the conclusion that the effects of smoking were significant.
By offering lower premiums for non-smokers, they made it clear to the public that they were willing to put their money where their mouth was.
That kind of behavior is usually quite convincing.
It amazes me that so many with an apparent contempt for scientific method and thought are readers and 'commenters'. Perhaps they share a sort of intellectual masochism that derives pleasure from having their most cherished beliefs called into question.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI see some confusion or misunderstanding about what the "scientific method" means. It does not mean that anyone claiming to be a scientist has attained supreme indifference to the preferences or passions displayed by lesser mortals.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientific method is about the open publication and discussion of data, analysis and conclusions. So that any individual mistakes, biases or preferences can be minimised or eliminated as the discussion in the scientific community at large proceeds. Hence the 'vigorous' arguments at conferences and the often uncomfortably direct comments offered by reviewers before publication of papers that don't meet certain standards.
A scientist needs to review work before submitting it to try to forestall predictable criticism. It doesn't mean that s/he's some remote unemotional cypher lacking passion or commitment to the project. It's only after the work's been accepted or rejected by the larger group of people with expertise that anyone can say the "scientific method" has been applied.
It's a group activity, not a demand for individuals to have a certain mindset or personality.
"CONTRARY to what everyone believes , transfusions kill you , as opposed to extending your life like they have always believed."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisironjustice, please point me to the peer-reviewed, published source of this bit of 'data." We'll wait...
Had you been paying the *slightest* attention to the scientific discussion of climate change, and/or science in general, ALL real experts in the field have *consistently* spoken of 'probabilities,' not that the science is 'proof' of the theory. Climate scientists have always followed this tenet of science. You're assertion is a red herring.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYours is a valid observation. I found that my own criticisms largely related to the "mis-information" coming out of that "community." The next thing I noticed is that others who read my criticisms often concluded that I was in the opposite (liberal) camp. Funny - because I was in on the founding of the Michigan Conservative Party and one sportsman's group (Sportsmen's Alliance of Michigan, *SAM*) to combat anti-gun bias back around 1970. Furthermore, my career as a (manufacturing) business exec was founded on my conservatism.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople (including long-time friends) seemed to forget all of that and assumed I'd somehow become a traitor because I "dared" criticize conservative propaganda as being untrue and promoting myths such as climate change denier nonsense.
My point here: is that it just happens to be a time when Republican/right wing "interests" are doing a lot more of this kind of deception than the Democrat / left wing "interests." So the apparent "bias" may be just a matter of focusing on the greatest threat at this time. (How well I remember the SAME kind of misinformation put out by the political left during the "famous" Sixties.)
Your argument that propaganda is equal to or greater than Science omits the clear distinction between scientific theory and propaganda: That is, scientific theories DO FAIL and are replaced by more accurate assessments about our Universe. All of Science is speculative - and ADMITS THAT, while ideologies deal only in demanding loyalty to whatever their chosen authorities TELL their followers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNotice that the article talks about people putting their self-identity (i.e. egos) before even facts which are proven to the maximum possible degree. That kind of fantasizing is what makes so many people vulnerable to the advertising technique which tells people: "You're great but will become even better when you buy this product." (the product being: whatever a particular ideology is selling).
hanmeng,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegarding what you perceive as anti-Republican bias, check out the article in the current issue http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=antiscience-beliefs-jeopardize-us-democracy, which identifies anti-science beliefs on the part of both Democrats and Republicans. However, the article does point out that many currently prominent Republican leaders often question the validity of science itself, and/or claim that long-settled science (e.g., evolution, anthropogenic climate change) is actually not settled at all.
"Bias indeed" - namely yours. Your comment is a classic example of selection bias.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI, personally, have had multiple transfusions. I, personally, am alive. I, personally, am a living refutation of your truly peculiar belief.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@ironjustice since we are all into correcting misunderstandings, you are both right and wrong. Blood transfusions can definitely kill you for a variety of reasons, however they definitely can extend your life. It is all about selection and risk-benefit ratio, not a black and white, good vs evil, scenario.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a big difference between what we know- the earth isn’t 6,000 years old, what we think- dark matter exists, and what actions we should take in public policy. Why are some many scientists against even studying climate mitigation- like creating man made clouds over Phoenix? Would you you’re your grants and book deals if it worked? Isn't that the rational you use in this article to attack the energy industry? Science can't reach many people when you present one-sided information on controversial subjects. Don't ignore the multiple academic frauds committed by warming alarmists- that would be a good start. Bad data = junk science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this