Propaganda: Spotting the Fake Scientists

Fake authorities are essential in creating believable propaganda. In a dictatorship, you can create a fake democratic election, or a fake justice system, or a fake "free press", to help convince ordinary people of your authority. Most people know how to tell a fake democracy, and I have written a blog about it already, and maybe soon I will explain the difference between a real and a fake justice system. But this time I want to take on fake science.

In the last 50 years at least, fake scientists have been used in propaganda. There is no strict qualification for calling yourself a scientist. The image of a scientist is very powerful subliminally, because of connections to authority figures such as doctors and teachers. And because scientists generally also have a good reputation for telling the truth, fake scientists are useful in giving authority to certain types of propaganda, for example the battles over tobacco smoke, global warming, wind power, pesticide use, genetically modified foods and seeds, automobile pollution, and other scientifically based arguments.

Many people seem to think that a real scientist is anybody with a white lab coat, glasses, messy hair and a pocket protector. Sponsors of propaganda take advantage of this and trot out an endless array of fake scientists to "prove" their points of view.

A real scientist may look the same as a fake scientist, but there are ways to tell the difference.

Some obvious tricks are fake or obsolete or irrelevant credentials. Even if a self-proclaimed scientist is currently engaged in teaching at a university, it does not mean they are engaged in scientific research, and is no guarantee they are objective in their presentations.

One way that I use to separate true scientists from the fake is finding one dishonest argument, as dishonest arguments go against a scientists unwritten code of conduct. And all it takes is one, I don't need to go through a hundred fake arguments to get the point. I'm not saying a wrong argument, that's different from dishonest. Just like an addition mistake on your taxes is different from creating fake receipts. Fake scientists will often be motivated (usually by money from sponsors) to fake research to prove their point.

Another test I use for distinguishing a real scientist is peer review. Scientists generally abide by a code of ethics that are based on impartiality. In other words, no falsifying results. If anything is ever found in their work that even resembles a falsified result, a real scientist will correct it as quickly as possible. Because denial results in real scientists refusing further cooperation, even in reviewing their work. Real scientists rely on each other to independently review their work, this is called "peer review". Any self-proclaimed scientist who is not involved in peer review is a fake scientist. Unfortunately there are so many fake scientists around (the money is good) that they can engage in fake peer review with each other, another propaganda trick to watch out for.

Real scientists do not present a thousand poorly screened arguments (I call the dumpster proof) and let the hapless opponent sift through them all for a grain of truth. Any one of the arguments being false, dishonest, or misleading is grounds for being excluded from further peer review.

On the other hand, the true scientists are honour bound to investigate an honest challenge to their theory.

Science is not opinion. Real science is not accepted through debating tactics - the acceptance is according to evidence and calculation, and repeatability. Not by shouting, interrupting, personal attacks, straw man arguments etc.

Nothing is taken on blind faith, nothing attributed to superstition or the supernatural. If a cause is not known, it does not mean that it is magic.

A true scientist will admit they are wrong when presented with a sound counter argument.

Will not take money to prove a given result. Funding must be independent of the outcome of the research, or it is not science. Must disclose any conflict of interest, for example taking money from tobacco companies and saying smoking is not harmful the the health.

Does not make controversial statements outside his field of expertise, claiming the authority that "he is a scientist".

Is David Suzuki a scientist? He is a zoologist turned environmental activist. He is not a current scientist as much as he is a spokesman for scientists. Any statements made by David Suzuki that I have seen are based on real scientific work. I think there is a place for scientists who move to educating the public, and as long as they retain the respect of real scientists, then I consider them as an authoritative source of information. However, you will often see spokesmen like David Suzuki engaged in debates, and giving opinions, which I do not consider actual science, but necessary at times when you need to make non scientists or the public aware of scientific developments.

Some critics have likened science to another new type of religion. I don't think so. While it's true I have faith in the scientific method, this is different from "Religious faith"

Religious faith or "Belief in God"
- The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another
- a principle, etc., accepted as true, often without proof

Scientific faith, quoted from Wikipedia article "Faith".
"It is sometimes argued that even scientific knowledge is dependent on 'faith' - for example, faith that the researcher responsible for an empirical conclusion is competent, and honest. Indeed, distinguished chemist and philosopher Michael Polanyi argued that scientific discovery begins with a scientist's faith that an unknown discovery is possible. Scientific discovery thus requires a passionate commitment to a result that is unknowable at the outset. Polanyi argued that the scientific method is not an objective method removed from man's passion. On the contrary, scientific progress depends primarily on the unique capability of free man to notice and investigate patterns and connections, and on the individual scientist's willingness to commit time and resources to such investigation, which usually must begin before the truth is known or the benefits of the discovery are imagined, let alone understood fully. It could then be argued that even in science, until one possesses all knowledge in totality, one will need faith in order to believe an understanding to be correct or incorrect in total affirmation.

Again, scientific faith does not see itself as dogmatic. While the scientist must make presuppositions in order to get the enterprise under way, almost everything (according to some thinkers, such as Quine, literally everything) is revisable and discardable."