Thread. Just finished reading “The Misinformation Age” by @cailinmeister & James Weatherall. Among other things, it provides a nice summary of some simple models in philosophy of science that get at mechanisms by which false beliefs can spread / become stabilized.
These same mechanisms (e.g., conformist transmission; prestige-biased transmission; trusting similar others) have a large overlap with social-learning biases studied in work on the evolution of social learning and cultural evolution.
E.g., sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
E.g., sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
The book does what philosophers of sci nicely do in many papers – lays out a specific case studies for when false belief spread / were slow to be replaced (e.g., stomach ulcers being caused by stomach acid as opposed to bacteria) and digs into what forces caused this.
These case studies were interesting and one of my favorite parts of the book.
A few thoughts. 1) it’s obvious that the notion that science is necessarily self-correcting is wrong. The extent of self-correction depends on the structure of scientific communities (e.g., network connectivity; whether all findings are shared in an unbiased way or not).
There are plenty of ways that things can go awry, as nicely documented in the book.
2) the book really hammered home how science (and the public’s view on scientific issues) is vulnerable to manipulation by bad actors. Over and over again, parties with specific interests (e.g., the tobacco, sugar, and coal industries) have intervened in the scientific process to
promote an agenda, for example, by funding scientists whose work made these industries look less bad or by drawing disproportionate attention to research findings that supported industry interests.
It’s scary stuff, because it turns out that this type of propaganda works really well. And if it works for industry, it probably also works for scientists who have their own agendas (e.g., promote their favorite pet theories).
Overall, I thought it was an interesting, easy to read book. The case studies of things going wrong / industry propaganda are depressing, but it highlights why it's crucial that we actively fight against the spread of misinformation, both inside and outside of science.
