6 ms·

This idea is why I think we should take lunatic conspiracy theory hypothesis seriously (enough to study them): if the mainstream scientific community ignores th

This idea is why I think we should take lunatic conspiracy theory hypothesis seriously (enough to study them): if the mainstream scientific community ignores them, they end up being ‘tested’ by the ignorant masses using unsophisticated methods. For example, it’s hard to find papers on heterodox hypothesis for climate change where a few good papers showing null results would help convince a lot of skeptics (although of course there will always be skeptics who distrust all academic data and are immune to changing their mind).

cryptochamorro 3y ago
How does one do this without reforming academia?
- brutusborn 3y ago
  Convince funding bodies that there is a large upside to studying heterodox views.
  - jonhohle 3y ago
    And who is going to pay for it? Pharma’s going to fund pro-pharma research. Where is the money opposed to pharma at scale? I’m probably past the point of jaded, but if there isn’t money behind it (and even more to be made), even if the results are valid, it will just be crushed by those with incentives to bury it (until, like tobacco for example, it can’t be ignored anymore).
WaxProlix 3y ago
On the other hand, there is a large contingent - probably the vast majority - for whom no amount of rigor or proof would be sufficient. Flat Earthers can be shown evidence for days and reject it all, for instance. Because it isn't really about the facts for most folks. I also think - and suspect TFA agrees here - that taking lunatics (or, more likely, the intentionally dense) seriously emboldens them, and lends their ideas the unearned merit of your efforts. Sartre had something to say about that, too.
- brutusborn 3y ago
  Believing that society should hide debates on truth from the ‘ignorant masses’ for their own protection is the reason we are in a low-trust situation where people refuse to get vaccinated. Treating people like children leads to them acting like children. I am yet to see any evidence that discussion ‘emboldens’ them; rather suppression makes them angry and angry. Also, I think this view aligns with TFA. Don’t try to convince stupid people because they will just be reactionary. All you can do is give them the evidence, but to do that you need to take their hypothesis seriously.
  - saghm 3y ago
    I don't think it's so much about hiding debates as not seeking them out if the other side isn't arguing in good faith. In that regard, conspiracy theories like the earth being flat are a good litmus test that a debate isn't worth the time or energy; if you can't reach common ground with someone on well-established, non-controversial facts, there's no point in trying to debate them about more nuanced topics.
    - brutusborn 3y ago
      To the contrary, I’ve seen experiments falsify flat earth theories where the dogmatists suddenly are forced to rethink their views. If you don’t have these experiments or debates, you have 0% chance of changing people’s minds. At least give them a chance.
      - majormajor 3y ago
        Experiments disproved flat earth literal ages ago. So you're saying not just "do experiments on crazy theories" but do them forever in perpetuity?
        jonhohle 3y ago
        Agree to a debate when they have disproved the experiment and provided reproducible proof. Better yet if they can get it peer reviewed (though that can be hard when you’re challenging “the system”).
mapontosevenths 3y ago
>although of course there will always be skeptics who distrust all academic data and are immune to changing their mind Vaccine skeptics mostly fall into this category. I mention it because the author of this blog appears to be one of them. I agree that more effort should be put into the "fringe" research to disprove these things, but I'm concerned that no amount of proof could ever help, which ironically is the point of this quote.
- weaksauce 3y ago
  they reject all the contrary evidence as "mainstream government funded research that lies to you" so there is no proof of evidence that would make it work
  - brutusborn 3y ago
    This generalisation is simply false. I know well educated people who are skeptical of vaccines for sophisticated epistemological reasons such as disagreements over things like what effect sizes are considered significant. Painting this broad brush is not useful or based on evidence, it is simply the mainstream narrative.
    - majormajor 3y ago
      > I know well educated people who are skeptical of vaccines for sophisticated epistemological reasons such as disagreements over things like what effect sizes are considered significant. But that doesn't sound like something that would be changed one bit by doing serious research into lunatic conspiracy theories like microchips for tracking in covid vacines... Are there any actual examples of "serious research" into "lunatic conspiracy theories" (lunatic here being your word) changing the minds of people buying into those theories?
      - jonhohle 3y ago
        IMHO, the problem is the gradient across complete confidence in the safety of x, concern about the safety of x, doubt about the safety of x, and assuredness about the evil ulterior motives of x. I’m just as worried about anyone with complete confidence as I am someone who immediately assumes evil ulterior motives. Over time, the probability of one having a medical procedure with overpromised outcomes or under-disclosed side effects approaches 100%.
jesterson 3y ago
That's also partly the reason why people abhor mainstream scientific community - due to arrogance, corporatism and dismissal of claims with phrases like "I am the science". Additionally, mainstream scientific community is not something that shouldn't be challenged - quite the opposite. Just like any other community it is prone to corruption in every possible sense. This corruption has long term consequences for society.

cryptochamorro 3y ago

How does one do this without reforming academia?

brutusborn 3y ago
Convince funding bodies that there is a large upside to studying heterodox views.
- jonhohle 3y ago
  And who is going to pay for it? Pharma’s going to fund pro-pharma research. Where is the money opposed to pharma at scale? I’m probably past the point of jaded, but if there isn’t money behind it (and even more to be made), even if the results are valid, it will just be crushed by those with incentives to bury it (until, like tobacco for example, it can’t be ignored anymore).

WaxProlix 3y ago

On the other hand, there is a large contingent - probably the vast majority - for whom no amount of rigor or proof would be sufficient. Flat Earthers can be shown evidence for days and reject it all, for instance. Because it isn't really about the facts for most folks. I also think - and suspect TFA agrees here - that taking lunatics (or, more likely, the intentionally dense) seriously emboldens them, and lends their ideas the unearned merit of your efforts. Sartre had something to say about that, too.

brutusborn 3y ago
Believing that society should hide debates on truth from the ‘ignorant masses’ for their own protection is the reason we are in a low-trust situation where people refuse to get vaccinated. Treating people like children leads to them acting like children. I am yet to see any evidence that discussion ‘emboldens’ them; rather suppression makes them angry and angry. Also, I think this view aligns with TFA. Don’t try to convince stupid people because they will just be reactionary. All you can do is give them the evidence, but to do that you need to take their hypothesis seriously.
- saghm 3y ago
  I don't think it's so much about hiding debates as not seeking them out if the other side isn't arguing in good faith. In that regard, conspiracy theories like the earth being flat are a good litmus test that a debate isn't worth the time or energy; if you can't reach common ground with someone on well-established, non-controversial facts, there's no point in trying to debate them about more nuanced topics.
  - brutusborn 3y ago
    To the contrary, I’ve seen experiments falsify flat earth theories where the dogmatists suddenly are forced to rethink their views. If you don’t have these experiments or debates, you have 0% chance of changing people’s minds. At least give them a chance.
    - majormajor 3y ago
      Experiments disproved flat earth literal ages ago. So you're saying not just "do experiments on crazy theories" but do them forever in perpetuity?
      - jonhohle 3y ago
        Agree to a debate when they have disproved the experiment and provided reproducible proof. Better yet if they can get it peer reviewed (though that can be hard when you’re challenging “the system”).

mapontosevenths 3y ago

>although of course there will always be skeptics who distrust all academic data and are immune to changing their mind Vaccine skeptics mostly fall into this category. I mention it because the author of this blog appears to be one of them. I agree that more effort should be put into the "fringe" research to disprove these things, but I'm concerned that no amount of proof could ever help, which ironically is the point of this quote.

weaksauce 3y ago
they reject all the contrary evidence as "mainstream government funded research that lies to you" so there is no proof of evidence that would make it work
- brutusborn 3y ago
  This generalisation is simply false. I know well educated people who are skeptical of vaccines for sophisticated epistemological reasons such as disagreements over things like what effect sizes are considered significant. Painting this broad brush is not useful or based on evidence, it is simply the mainstream narrative.
  - majormajor 3y ago
    > I know well educated people who are skeptical of vaccines for sophisticated epistemological reasons such as disagreements over things like what effect sizes are considered significant. But that doesn't sound like something that would be changed one bit by doing serious research into lunatic conspiracy theories like microchips for tracking in covid vacines... Are there any actual examples of "serious research" into "lunatic conspiracy theories" (lunatic here being your word) changing the minds of people buying into those theories?
    - jonhohle 3y ago
      IMHO, the problem is the gradient across complete confidence in the safety of x, concern about the safety of x, doubt about the safety of x, and assuredness about the evil ulterior motives of x. I’m just as worried about anyone with complete confidence as I am someone who immediately assumes evil ulterior motives. Over time, the probability of one having a medical procedure with overpromised outcomes or under-disclosed side effects approaches 100%.

jesterson 3y ago

That's also partly the reason why people abhor mainstream scientific community - due to arrogance, corporatism and dismissal of claims with phrases like "I am the science". Additionally, mainstream scientific community is not something that shouldn't be challenged - quite the opposite. Just like any other community it is prone to corruption in every possible sense. This corruption has long term consequences for society.