This
is a fascinating book and one I'd encourage all thinking people to
read. Heck, even better try to get the non-thinking people you know to
read this because it might snap some of them out of their denialism
before they go to their next Obama birthers meeting.
While I like most of the book I did take exception to some of his comments on the topics of genetically modified foods and alternative medicines.
But I believe a good way to test ones own beliefs is to have them challenged and this book does that.
Also the chapter on vaccinations has the best argument against vaccination-causes-autism I have ever read or heard and I read a lot about vaccination, such as the great Horse Boy book.
One thing that fascinates me about this book is Specter goes where his argument takes him and while some of his positions (like that anti-vaccination movement) may be applauded by some others will dislike his position on genetically modified foods (he calls much of the criticism of them hysteria).
But i'm getting ahead of myself. Just what is denialism? This NPR piece about the book includes an excerpt of the book that explains it well, I think.
I knew from the first time I heard of this book that it would spark some attention and controversy, on Newsvine (it's already happening here) as well as science blogs.
I offered Newsviners a chance here to suggest questions for the author of this book and the book about Googled.
I won't gloat - I'll just note that I'm right. Amid positive reviews and a fascinating exchange at Slate about the book comes complaints from Grist (a green site) that Specter didn't jump into the climate change debate, an intentional dodge.
And with that, let's get to the interview.
Is the level - as in the number of people engaging in - what you call "denialism" increasing? If so, why do you think that is?
Michael: Hard to say if the absolute number is growing, but I do think the problem is getting worse. Why? Many reasons: lack of trust in authority, a sense that medicine has not cured major diseases, that it costs too much and there must be a better way, a desire for simplicity in a complex world, the power of the internet to magnify even the smallest doubt into an international issue, and fear of the future.
Let me play devil's advocate and you tell me where I'm wrong: There have always been people engaging in denialism, from those who believed the planet was flat to those who hung witches to, more recently, all those who don't think Oswald acted alone.
Of course that is true; Luddites will always be with us. Flat earthers, too. But the denialists used to be more on the fringes of society than they are now and that is what concerns me. I don't worry about creationists or even anti-HIV activists, even though both beliefs are without any support in fact. I am more preoccupied with the many denialists who are not nuts, not conspiracy theorists and who would never have thought Oswald acted alone. People obsessed with non-existent links between vaccines and autism are not holocaust deniers, they are scared and searching for a logical explanation where one does not yet fully exist. So they cling to what they believe, even though there is less reason to do so every month. The same is true with people obsesses with organic food or who take handfuls of vitamins every day even though they do no good (and often do harm) These are thoughtful people, looking for answers. But they look at anecdote and dwell on intuition. My goal is to get them to consider basing their judgments on data, even if it contradicts their own beliefs.
Where does the role of people having critical thinking abilities and skills fit into this debate? Is this an issue going back to how people learn in schools?
It's important and yes, it goes back to school. If you have a sense of the potential pitfalls AND the potential benefits of a technology you are going to be more likely to accept it (assuming the risk is small.) One of the reasons people have trouble with vaccines - nearly half of New Yorkers say they won't get the H1N1 vaccine - is that they hear
about theoretical problems but have never been taught to balance them with the very real benefits of preventing diseases from spreading.
What role has media - TV, Internet, talk radio - played in the number of denialists?
That is a difficult question. I think access to information is a net plus; a very big net plus. But the Internet can be an echo chamber for conspiracy theories, TV news can be simplistic and talk radio is often brazenly anti-intellectual.
Do you agree with me that Watergate was a, well, watershed moment in denialism in that after that even those who would always believe their government no matter what would be suspicious? Increased skepticism and cynicism became more paramount leading us to people today believing 9/11 alternate theories, all vaccines are suspicious, birthers,etc.
I agree completely. Politicians used to be admired uniformly and parents hoped their children would grow up to be public servants; that is almost never true now. (Though Obama has put some of the punch back in idealism.) There is an overwhelming sense that we cannot believe the government or scientists, particularly those who work for corporations so, yes, the bottom line is a willingness to invest in a lot of crackpot theories with no basis in fact and that ignore towering stacks of data. It would be extremely funny that there is a (quasi) serious discussion about whether or not our very American president is an American citizen – it if wasn't so painfully ludicrous.
I found myself wondering, while reading this, if you walk your talk. What about you yourself? Are you 100 percent in support of vaccinations with your own family? Do you eat genetically modified foods?
Yes, one thousand percent in support. There is no better bet on the future health of your children than vaccines. None. Not only do I eat genetically modified foods it would be ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE to find somebody in this country who does, or at least has, not. They are ubiquitous, so much so, that I have recently changed my position on labeling them. I used to think it made no sense, since all food is genetically modified in one way or another. But now I support labels – simply so that people can actually see and understand that they have always been eating GMO's and that nobody has ever been made sick as a result.
Stephen Colbert, in lampooning Bill O'Reilly, it seems to me, often uses this denialism belief to great satirical effect. Do you watch him? I told your publicist you should try to get on his show because that would be hilarious.
I watch him and he is both hilarious and insightful. I leave publicity decisions to the experts.
If we could bio-engineer humans to be smarter, healthier, and more attractive, should we? Is there an ethical dilemma with "buying" your next future super-child?
Of course there is an ethical dilemma with "buying" your next child. But the line is not so clear as it might seem. Should we use technology to make people's hearts last longer or livers work better?
Yes, why wouldn't we? Millions of people today undergo laser surgery to see better, for example. That seems to be considered and acceptable way to "engineer" our bodies. Well, would it be acceptable
to implant a gene that ensures good sight? I am not sure I know the answer but I am sure many people would say no.
Would you consider birthers, those people convinced Obama is from Kenya despite documentation disproving this, a form of denialists?
Absolutely. When people choose belief over mountains of well documented information they are denialists.
Since science is a method for understanding the world, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that people distrust the interpretation and application of scientific discovery rather than the method itself?
I think few people understand, or have thought much about, the scientific method. What you say is true, but its really a offshoot of the bigger problem. If we understood the process by which sciences
winnows data and repeats experiments, I think many fewer people would object to what they now seem to see as the cold and corporate hand of science.
While I like most of the book I did take exception to some of his comments on the topics of genetically modified foods and alternative medicines.
But I believe a good way to test ones own beliefs is to have them challenged and this book does that.
Also the chapter on vaccinations has the best argument against vaccination-causes-autism I have ever read or heard and I read a lot about vaccination, such as the great Horse Boy book.
One thing that fascinates me about this book is Specter goes where his argument takes him and while some of his positions (like that anti-vaccination movement) may be applauded by some others will dislike his position on genetically modified foods (he calls much of the criticism of them hysteria).
But i'm getting ahead of myself. Just what is denialism? This NPR piece about the book includes an excerpt of the book that explains it well, I think.
I knew from the first time I heard of this book that it would spark some attention and controversy, on Newsvine (it's already happening here) as well as science blogs.
I offered Newsviners a chance here to suggest questions for the author of this book and the book about Googled.
I won't gloat - I'll just note that I'm right. Amid positive reviews and a fascinating exchange at Slate about the book comes complaints from Grist (a green site) that Specter didn't jump into the climate change debate, an intentional dodge.
And with that, let's get to the interview.
Is the level - as in the number of people engaging in - what you call "denialism" increasing? If so, why do you think that is?
Michael: Hard to say if the absolute number is growing, but I do think the problem is getting worse. Why? Many reasons: lack of trust in authority, a sense that medicine has not cured major diseases, that it costs too much and there must be a better way, a desire for simplicity in a complex world, the power of the internet to magnify even the smallest doubt into an international issue, and fear of the future.
Let me play devil's advocate and you tell me where I'm wrong: There have always been people engaging in denialism, from those who believed the planet was flat to those who hung witches to, more recently, all those who don't think Oswald acted alone.
Of course that is true; Luddites will always be with us. Flat earthers, too. But the denialists used to be more on the fringes of society than they are now and that is what concerns me. I don't worry about creationists or even anti-HIV activists, even though both beliefs are without any support in fact. I am more preoccupied with the many denialists who are not nuts, not conspiracy theorists and who would never have thought Oswald acted alone. People obsessed with non-existent links between vaccines and autism are not holocaust deniers, they are scared and searching for a logical explanation where one does not yet fully exist. So they cling to what they believe, even though there is less reason to do so every month. The same is true with people obsesses with organic food or who take handfuls of vitamins every day even though they do no good (and often do harm) These are thoughtful people, looking for answers. But they look at anecdote and dwell on intuition. My goal is to get them to consider basing their judgments on data, even if it contradicts their own beliefs.
Where does the role of people having critical thinking abilities and skills fit into this debate? Is this an issue going back to how people learn in schools?
It's important and yes, it goes back to school. If you have a sense of the potential pitfalls AND the potential benefits of a technology you are going to be more likely to accept it (assuming the risk is small.) One of the reasons people have trouble with vaccines - nearly half of New Yorkers say they won't get the H1N1 vaccine - is that they hear
about theoretical problems but have never been taught to balance them with the very real benefits of preventing diseases from spreading.
What role has media - TV, Internet, talk radio - played in the number of denialists?
That is a difficult question. I think access to information is a net plus; a very big net plus. But the Internet can be an echo chamber for conspiracy theories, TV news can be simplistic and talk radio is often brazenly anti-intellectual.
Do you agree with me that Watergate was a, well, watershed moment in denialism in that after that even those who would always believe their government no matter what would be suspicious? Increased skepticism and cynicism became more paramount leading us to people today believing 9/11 alternate theories, all vaccines are suspicious, birthers,etc.
I agree completely. Politicians used to be admired uniformly and parents hoped their children would grow up to be public servants; that is almost never true now. (Though Obama has put some of the punch back in idealism.) There is an overwhelming sense that we cannot believe the government or scientists, particularly those who work for corporations so, yes, the bottom line is a willingness to invest in a lot of crackpot theories with no basis in fact and that ignore towering stacks of data. It would be extremely funny that there is a (quasi) serious discussion about whether or not our very American president is an American citizen – it if wasn't so painfully ludicrous.
I found myself wondering, while reading this, if you walk your talk. What about you yourself? Are you 100 percent in support of vaccinations with your own family? Do you eat genetically modified foods?
Yes, one thousand percent in support. There is no better bet on the future health of your children than vaccines. None. Not only do I eat genetically modified foods it would be ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE to find somebody in this country who does, or at least has, not. They are ubiquitous, so much so, that I have recently changed my position on labeling them. I used to think it made no sense, since all food is genetically modified in one way or another. But now I support labels – simply so that people can actually see and understand that they have always been eating GMO's and that nobody has ever been made sick as a result.
Stephen Colbert, in lampooning Bill O'Reilly, it seems to me, often uses this denialism belief to great satirical effect. Do you watch him? I told your publicist you should try to get on his show because that would be hilarious.
I watch him and he is both hilarious and insightful. I leave publicity decisions to the experts.
If we could bio-engineer humans to be smarter, healthier, and more attractive, should we? Is there an ethical dilemma with "buying" your next future super-child?
Of course there is an ethical dilemma with "buying" your next child. But the line is not so clear as it might seem. Should we use technology to make people's hearts last longer or livers work better?
Yes, why wouldn't we? Millions of people today undergo laser surgery to see better, for example. That seems to be considered and acceptable way to "engineer" our bodies. Well, would it be acceptable
to implant a gene that ensures good sight? I am not sure I know the answer but I am sure many people would say no.
Would you consider birthers, those people convinced Obama is from Kenya despite documentation disproving this, a form of denialists?
Absolutely. When people choose belief over mountains of well documented information they are denialists.
Since science is a method for understanding the world, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that people distrust the interpretation and application of scientific discovery rather than the method itself?
I think few people understand, or have thought much about, the scientific method. What you say is true, but its really a offshoot of the bigger problem. If we understood the process by which sciences
winnows data and repeats experiments, I think many fewer people would object to what they now seem to see as the cold and corporate hand of science.
No comments:
Post a Comment