Scrutable

A recent article in the Guardian about a new process of spreading misinformation often on scientific matters.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... nformation

How does this keep happening? Why do people keep giving snake-oil salesmen a microphone? And how can anti-vaxxers keep telling us the same obvious lies without shame, when they have been debunked and factchecked time and time again?

The answer is that if so many lies are told so often, then the truth just becomes another position in the argument. Alternative facts are accepted as real facts.

Steve Novella has a take on how to deal with it. Some I agree with. It is pointless trying to correct facts in a firehosing situation. Better to ignore the counter arguments and put your argument in the strongest possible terms.

https://theness.com/neurologicablog/ind ... irehosing/

For some strange reason, I am banned from commenting on his blog.

The second link doesn’t work for me, I get 502 bad gateway error.

I believe this is the correct link: https://theness.com/neurologicablog/ind ... irehosing/

The argument that you should counter firehosing by putting your argument forward rather than simply countering theirs is sound I think. I’ve tried to counter arguments from flat-earthers before now and it’s simply impossible. Facts slide off them.

Grumble wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 12, 2019 8:04 pm

The argument that you should counter firehosing by putting your argument forward rather than simply countering theirs is sound I think. I’ve tried to counter arguments from flat-earthers before now and it’s simply impossible. Facts slide off them.

Yes. It's related to the reason why it's better for a stand up comic to debate creationists than for biologists.

The facts are clear enough for someone who is scientifically literate, and the creationist wins simply by debating with an acknowledged authority.

I saw Eddie Izzard last Friday, he does a great section on how implausible the notion of God is by wondering how a plan to produce people benefitted from millions of years of dinosaurs wandering around. It’s very convincing, not that I needed it to convince me but it is a tactic I’m prepared to steal should the need arise. Not sure I can make it as funny as him though.

As a general rule, I think "not debating the cranks" is good policy. All it does is give them some legitimacy and they know that they can better sway opinion in a debate format than when required to produce real evidence. However, we do need to remember that the cranks are not our real audience. For most of them, no matter how much evidence is produced they will never change their minds. Our real audience is the population of people who might be convinced by the claims of cranks and sucked in.

I would never bother having a scientific discussion with a flat earther, or even try to point out why they are wrong. Too few people are likely to be enticed into the ditch. Pointing and laughing is my preferred approach. For creationists, it is much the same. However, if I lived in the US I might take a more proactive approach. The areas where people are more easily led by emotion or lack of knowledge are the places to work. Medicine and Food are the two big ones I get involved in. In both my approach is to try and talk past the cranks, but at the audience of waverers. Emphasize why it is a good idea to get your children vaccinated; the benefits to them and to society as a whole.

I seemed to do quite well with a polio denier just by pointing out the 1990s outbreak in the Netherlands, and who was affected.

jimbob wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 12, 2019 11:02 pm

I seemed to do quite well with a polio denier just by pointing out the 1990s outbreak in the Netherlands, and who was affected.

I’m not aware of that one, got a link please?

Paper here.

Briefer version here.

Chris Preston wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 13, 2019 6:52 am

Paper here.

Briefer version here.

Yup that was the paper I quoted, and the key part even fits in a tweet or at most two

An outbreak of poliomyelitis occurred in the Netherlands between September, 1992, and February, 1993, after 14 years without endemic cases. The outbreak was due to poliovirus type 3 and involved 71 patients, of whom 2 died and 59 had paralysis. The patients were aged between 10 days and 61 years (median 18 years).

None of the patients had been vaccinated, and all but 1 belonged to a socially and geographically clustered group of people who refuse vaccination for religious reasons. Control measures were taken within 5 days of notification of the first patient and included a wide offer of vaccination with the trivalent oral poliovirus vaccine to the population at risk.

Grumble wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 12, 2019 8:04 pm

The argument that you should counter firehosing by putting your argument forward rather than simply countering theirs is sound I think. I’ve tried to counter arguments from flat-earthers before now and it’s simply impossible. Facts slide off them.

Yes, it's hard to rationalise someone out of a position they didn't rationalise themselves into. As others have said, the value in chiming in at all when confronted with nonsense is the silent audience who are not sure if there's something valid in the argument. Sadly, the show of a ‘balanced debate’ often means a reasonable and expert opinion in one corner and a fringe lunatic in the other. For subjects like flat earth theory it usually doesn't fool people, but with more complex and nuanced subjects like the technicalities of climate change or how free trade agreements work then the ‘debate’ gives credence to the side that is spouting rubbish.