Thread by @BenFranta

Nice piece by @KateAronoff observing that calls to "believe" or "trust" science miss the target.

Instead of imperious instructions to believe science, a better approach is to expose the disinformation campaigns at their (usually corporate) source.

thread
newrepublic.com/article/157442…

There are at least 3 big problems with the reflexive call to "believe" science:

1) It isn't historically defensible. Sexism, racism, & eugenics were all scientific, as were a range of assuredly safe products & medical practices now known to be harmful. "Science" can be wrong.

Science & its institutions are powerful tools for finding truth. But ultimately we should believe things b/c they are true, not b/c "science said so."

There's a crucial difference between using science as evidence of truth vs. using it as an absolute, abstract authority.

2) There are imperious class dimensions to the image of relatively affluent, professionalized commentators instructing others whom to believe or trust (namely, another relatively affluent & professionalized group).

& who likes to be told what to believe while being mocked?

3) Finally & perhaps most important, calls to "believe science" suggest the problem is one of unenlightened people refusing to "believe science" b/c of parochialism, ideology or lack of intelligence.

But everyday people are not the SOURCE of science denial: they're the TARGET.

Science disinformation & confusion campaigns are organized by & for particular interests, often corporate, to ward off regulation, litigation & negative publicity. These campaigns are aimed AT the public.

Blaming everyday "science deniers" ignores the true source of the problem.

Disinformation campaigns thrive when their origins & motivations are hidden. One reason is that credibility is enhanced when a message appears to spring from various sources independently. Another is campaign opponents waste time attacking groups who are not the actual source.

Blaming the targets of disinformation (e.g., everyday people targeted by corporate disinformation about climate change or coronavirus) can actually enable those disinformation campaigns, b/c such blame, in misdefining the problem, allows the actual source to hide.

One can try to "out-message" a disinformation campaign. In a sense, "believe science" is an example of this.

The problem is that corporate disinformation campaigns usually have more resources in money, data, experience, sophistication, patience, & messaging professionals.

Such counter-messaging is important, but it's hard to beat a disinfo campaign on that alone.

Ultimately, what's needed is exposure of the campaign's source. Then, its message & tactics often become so obviously self-serving & deceptive that the campaign loses effectiveness.

So when faced w apparently spontaneous outbreaks of selective science denialism, deriding everyday people who, as targets of sophisticated campaigns, have internalized disinfo misses the mark.

Instead, find & expose the true sources. Hint: it's usually those who stand to make $.