Thread by @ScienceUpFirst

When is it that a healthy amount of doubt and skepticism becomes a bad thing?

When misinformers use your healthy doubt and skepticism to question what has been scientifically proven and settled, it’s called doubt mongering.

#ScienceUpFirst

🧵[1/7]

The tobacco industry used this tactic to create confusion around cigarette’s link to lung cancer. This tactic has appeared in climate change, and nuclear disarmament debates.

#ScienceUpFirst

🧵[2/7]

Doubt mongers don't try to convince you about their agenda, instead they create doubt on what's proven scientifically. For example, instead of trying to convince you that tobacco or climate change is harmless, they state that the science is in doubt.

#ScienceUpFirst

🧵[3/7]

A doubt monger will also:
- Only present data that fits their agenda
- Fund their own research
- Claim the solution would be more dangerous or too costly
- Create the illusion of a disagreement among scientists

#ScienceUpFirst

🧵[4/7]

A doubt monger will also:
- Reach more people by publishing in mainstream media
- Deflect the issue
- Attack the science or the scientist’s reputation and motivation (sounds familiar? Check out our Ad Hominem attack post!)

#ScienceUpFirst

🧵[5/7]

Wondering if you are dealing with a doubt monger? Ask if the:
- Information is coming from a legitimate source
- Expert is specialized in the field
- Expert is associated/paid by an organization to whom the allegations would benefit/disadvantage?

#ScienceUpFirst

🧵[6/7]

If you answered yes to one or more of these questions, you might be dealing with a doubt monger!

Many thanks to Jordan Collver (@JordanCollver) for collaborating with us on this project!

Sources: tinyurl.com/SUFDoubtMonger…

#ScienceUpFirst

🧵[7/7]