6 ms·

There is a great book: "Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming" Two things to learn

There is a great book: "Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming" Two things to learn from the book: 1) The are same people and organizations behind many science related denials: DDT, tobacco, SDI defenders, acid rain, ozone hole, and climate change denial are linked to same group of people. They try to "maintain the controversy" and "keep the debate alive". 2) The usual suspects don't do this just for the money. Sure, they take money from business sponsors, but the merchants of doubt themselves are not purely cynical operatives and money grabbers. There is type of Manichaean paranoia and ideology behind it. It's related to cold war mentality and free market fundamentalism. George C. Marshall Institute (GMI) was one of the centers of this ideology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Marshall_Institute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Marshall_Institute

FabHK 7y ago
Another good book in that vein, but more in the political arena (think tanks etc.) is Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right by Jane Mayer.
- specialist 7y ago
  This is the book that caused me the greatest despair about our current political system. Short of rolling back Citizens United, I can't imagine an effective counter strategy. Correction: Union -> United
  - tasty_freeze 7y ago
    Citizens United https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
  - bluejekyll 7y ago
    Yes. The Supreme Court has two very memorable recent decisions that cause us to question the viability of our (2 party) democracy. 1) Bush v. Gore 2000: only time the court ever issued a decision, knowing that it was totally vaporous, and said this should not be used as future precedent. The entire point of the court is to set precedent. 2) Citizens United: continuing the notion that companies deserve as much protection as people. Pair those together and it becomes hard to claim that the US is a democracy at all. The court has some other notoriously bad decisions, but I hope they eventually come down on the side of democracy in regards to gerrymandering, despite the recent rulings.
    - rayiner 7y ago
      You understand that a contrary ruling on Citizens United would also allow the government to shut down numerous organizations advocating for addressing climate change? If the government can ban a political movie about Hilary Clinton (which is what was at issue in Citizens United), it can ban a political movie about Trump’s effect on climate change.
      - bluejekyll 7y ago
        You’re using ban like this was something about the government silencing someone, definitely a free speech issue. But that case was about campaign finance and the ability to control how much money, spending, etc., could be used in an election. You’re being disingenuous to say the least. Edit: btw I am not a lawyer, and so this is of course my lay persons opinion.
        tzs 7y ago
        > You’re using ban like this was something about the government silencing someone, definitely a free speech issue. It was. > But that case was about campaign finance and the ability to control how much money, spending, etc., could be used in an election. It wasn't. The law in question in CU banned corporations (including non-profit corporations) and unions from paying for any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentions a candidate within 60 days of a general election of 30 days of a primary. A non-profit wanted to air a film critical of a candidate. They were prohibited by that law from buying air time to show to their film, or even from buying ads advertising the availability of the film. They sued to overturn the law. The case did not involve nor did the ruling change the law on campaign finance.
        bluejekyll 7y ago
        > paying for any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentions a candidate within 60 days of a general election of 30 days of a primary. > The case did not involve nor did the ruling change the law on campaign finance. You’re right. And I was inaccurate. What we’re discussing is the rise and unregulated use of PACs and Super PACs to influence elections. This is an issue for fair elections and democracy.
GarrisonPrime 7y ago
While I don’t doubt your assertion that a select few are responsible for the bulk of the push-back on such issues, I think it’s good to have some resistance. Humans are so prone to wishful thinking and following consensus, it can be healthy to keep the debate alive longer than one might think necessary. It helps one clarify your position to yourself, for one.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
  How is flooding a consensus forming process with information that is known to be false possibly helpful with improving the accuracy of the process?
  - pmarreck 7y ago
    Precisely because “known to be false” is debatable. Known by who? To what certainty? Etc.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
      The context in this thread was fabricated, known to be false doubt, so, no, that is not debatable.
    - jonbronson 7y ago
      Known by experts of the field, the ones most qualified to evaluate claims of the field. The experts of this field are in strong consensus, to such a high degree of certainty that it's basically established fact.
- yawz 7y ago
  As an engineer and a scientific thinker I agree with having some skepticism. After all we try to “disprove“ hypotheses in science. However, what we are suffering from as a species at the moment is more related to what Bertrand Russell described as: “The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent full of doubt.”
- 7y ago
SomeOtherThrow 7y ago
This is a critical component of manufacturing consent. It ain’t just the right, the center have their own propaganda-like think tanks that work closely with the DNC. But, we are in a post-fact era. Expect this to get much worse.

FabHK 7y ago

Another good book in that vein, but more in the political arena (think tanks etc.) is Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right by Jane Mayer.

specialist 7y ago
This is the book that caused me the greatest despair about our current political system. Short of rolling back Citizens United, I can't imagine an effective counter strategy. Correction: Union -> United
- tasty_freeze 7y ago
  Citizens United https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
- bluejekyll 7y ago
  Yes. The Supreme Court has two very memorable recent decisions that cause us to question the viability of our (2 party) democracy. 1) Bush v. Gore 2000: only time the court ever issued a decision, knowing that it was totally vaporous, and said this should not be used as future precedent. The entire point of the court is to set precedent. 2) Citizens United: continuing the notion that companies deserve as much protection as people. Pair those together and it becomes hard to claim that the US is a democracy at all. The court has some other notoriously bad decisions, but I hope they eventually come down on the side of democracy in regards to gerrymandering, despite the recent rulings.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    You understand that a contrary ruling on Citizens United would also allow the government to shut down numerous organizations advocating for addressing climate change? If the government can ban a political movie about Hilary Clinton (which is what was at issue in Citizens United), it can ban a political movie about Trump’s effect on climate change.
    - bluejekyll 7y ago
      You’re using ban like this was something about the government silencing someone, definitely a free speech issue. But that case was about campaign finance and the ability to control how much money, spending, etc., could be used in an election. You’re being disingenuous to say the least. Edit: btw I am not a lawyer, and so this is of course my lay persons opinion.
      - tzs 7y ago
        > You’re using ban like this was something about the government silencing someone, definitely a free speech issue. It was. > But that case was about campaign finance and the ability to control how much money, spending, etc., could be used in an election. It wasn't. The law in question in CU banned corporations (including non-profit corporations) and unions from paying for any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentions a candidate within 60 days of a general election of 30 days of a primary. A non-profit wanted to air a film critical of a candidate. They were prohibited by that law from buying air time to show to their film, or even from buying ads advertising the availability of the film. They sued to overturn the law. The case did not involve nor did the ruling change the law on campaign finance.
        bluejekyll 7y ago
        > paying for any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentions a candidate within 60 days of a general election of 30 days of a primary. > The case did not involve nor did the ruling change the law on campaign finance. You’re right. And I was inaccurate. What we’re discussing is the rise and unregulated use of PACs and Super PACs to influence elections. This is an issue for fair elections and democracy.

GarrisonPrime 7y ago

While I don’t doubt your assertion that a select few are responsible for the bulk of the push-back on such issues, I think it’s good to have some resistance. Humans are so prone to wishful thinking and following consensus, it can be healthy to keep the debate alive longer than one might think necessary. It helps one clarify your position to yourself, for one.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
How is flooding a consensus forming process with information that is known to be false possibly helpful with improving the accuracy of the process?
- pmarreck 7y ago
  Precisely because “known to be false” is debatable. Known by who? To what certainty? Etc.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
    The context in this thread was fabricated, known to be false doubt, so, no, that is not debatable.
  - jonbronson 7y ago
    Known by experts of the field, the ones most qualified to evaluate claims of the field. The experts of this field are in strong consensus, to such a high degree of certainty that it's basically established fact.
yawz 7y ago
As an engineer and a scientific thinker I agree with having some skepticism. After all we try to “disprove“ hypotheses in science. However, what we are suffering from as a species at the moment is more related to what Bertrand Russell described as: “The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent full of doubt.”
7y ago

SomeOtherThrow 7y ago

This is a critical component of manufacturing consent. It ain’t just the right, the center have their own propaganda-like think tanks that work closely with the DNC. But, we are in a post-fact era. Expect this to get much worse.