3 ms·

What I can't understand is why people are so prone to believing the fake facts that make the rounds on the internet. It is so easy to debunk them, and anyone wh

What I can't understand is why people are so prone to believing the fake facts that make the rounds on the internet. It is so easy to debunk them, and anyone who has studied the topic for any amount of time knows they are false. Is there a name for this phenomenon? How can so many people be so wrongly informed? Examples [of fake facts]: 5G is dangerous Earth is flat Climate change isn't anthropogenic Moon landing didn't happen etc.

JudgeWapner 7y ago
It's easy to criticize certain people, especially conspiracy theorists. Yet conspiracies have actually happened and products have been recalled due to massive lies being told that cost countless lives. Thalidomide, celebrex, Bridgestone tires, asbestos, Ford fuel tanks, cigarettes, 737max, etc. What's new is peoples' ability to organize and question what is being offered to (or in this case forced on ) them. They very well may be wrong, and a lot of their arguments are pseudoscience bunk, but it's equally ignorant to believe the good word of $GIANT_TELECOM that everything is safe. Corporations have repeatedly proven that they are perfectly fine killing us if it boosts their share price a buck or two. Maybe this is the new normal where industries have to be preemptive in getting public approval first before deploying new technology.
- itcrowd 7y ago
  Look, I don't disagree with most things you say. However, especially in modern times with all academic papers being so easily accessible to anyone with an internet connection, the argument of "believ[ing] the good word of $GIANT_TELECOM" makes no sense. Everyone, and especially (science) journalists who report on this, can look at the peer-reviewed scientific literature and accurately portray what is communicated through that channel. You don't have to swallow the science as-is, but if there is criticism, it should be on the methods or techniques; not the funding, or reasonable conclusions* drawn from the findings. In other comments in this thread I have shown evidence that 5G is safe and highlighted flaws in other blogposts (not scientific articles, mind you) that are pretending otherwise. If people don't agree with that, that's fine but show the scientific evidence for it. Yes, there have been scandals in the past. Does that mean every new tech is the new scandal? No. *(conclusions not backed by evidence are fair-game)
  - JudgeWapner 7y ago
    I'm basically on board with 5G on the health front because any form of radiation exposure decreases with the square of the radius and, as you have shown, no ionizing or other adverse effects have been seen with pretty much any RF source. I have mild suspicion that directional antennas could be used as a weapon, but I think that's unlikely-to-impossible. I was merely trying to explain why phenomena like this (suspicion, FUD against new technology) arise. People are losing their trust in what they are being told, and there are rational explanations for it.
gonational 7y ago
3 of your example statements are true.
- Nicksil 7y ago
  Which 3?
Erlich_Bachman 7y ago
So far it just seems to me that it is you that are making an intellectual mistake to group some things that have very little to do with each other (except for the fact that you personally might be disagreeing with all of them, or that all of them are "controversial"?) > 5G is dangerous > Earth is flat > Climate change isn't anthropogenic > Moon landing didn't happen These are just very different topics with different ways of finding the truth, different consensus, very different people believing in all of them. In my experience there is almost no significant connection between people believing in any of these. (Except for a small percentage that just hop onto every conspiracy? But those are not the bulk of people discussing these issues.)

JudgeWapner 7y ago

It's easy to criticize certain people, especially conspiracy theorists. Yet conspiracies have actually happened and products have been recalled due to massive lies being told that cost countless lives. Thalidomide, celebrex, Bridgestone tires, asbestos, Ford fuel tanks, cigarettes, 737max, etc. What's new is peoples' ability to organize and question what is being offered to (or in this case forced on ) them. They very well may be wrong, and a lot of their arguments are pseudoscience bunk, but it's equally ignorant to believe the good word of $GIANT_TELECOM that everything is safe. Corporations have repeatedly proven that they are perfectly fine killing us if it boosts their share price a buck or two. Maybe this is the new normal where industries have to be preemptive in getting public approval first before deploying new technology.

itcrowd 7y ago
Look, I don't disagree with most things you say. However, especially in modern times with all academic papers being so easily accessible to anyone with an internet connection, the argument of "believ[ing] the good word of $GIANT_TELECOM" makes no sense. Everyone, and especially (science) journalists who report on this, can look at the peer-reviewed scientific literature and accurately portray what is communicated through that channel. You don't have to swallow the science as-is, but if there is criticism, it should be on the methods or techniques; not the funding, or reasonable conclusions* drawn from the findings. In other comments in this thread I have shown evidence that 5G is safe and highlighted flaws in other blogposts (not scientific articles, mind you) that are pretending otherwise. If people don't agree with that, that's fine but show the scientific evidence for it. Yes, there have been scandals in the past. Does that mean every new tech is the new scandal? No. *(conclusions not backed by evidence are fair-game)
- JudgeWapner 7y ago
  I'm basically on board with 5G on the health front because any form of radiation exposure decreases with the square of the radius and, as you have shown, no ionizing or other adverse effects have been seen with pretty much any RF source. I have mild suspicion that directional antennas could be used as a weapon, but I think that's unlikely-to-impossible. I was merely trying to explain why phenomena like this (suspicion, FUD against new technology) arise. People are losing their trust in what they are being told, and there are rational explanations for it.

gonational 7y ago

3 of your example statements are true.

Nicksil 7y ago
Which 3?

Erlich_Bachman 7y ago

So far it just seems to me that it is you that are making an intellectual mistake to group some things that have very little to do with each other (except for the fact that you personally might be disagreeing with all of them, or that all of them are "controversial"?) > 5G is dangerous > Earth is flat > Climate change isn't anthropogenic > Moon landing didn't happen These are just very different topics with different ways of finding the truth, different consensus, very different people believing in all of them. In my experience there is almost no significant connection between people believing in any of these. (Except for a small percentage that just hop onto every conspiracy? But those are not the bulk of people discussing these issues.)