Propaganda: Casting Doubt

How easy it is to put all of modern science on the defensive. You would think that with the success science has had in medicine, astronomy, technology, information systems, communications, warfare, and entertainment alone, that it would be practically unassailable from superstitious cults and special interest groups.

But sadly no. Over the years, there has been a growing list of "controversies" about science. In the fifties there was the debate over pesticides killing flora and fauna. (science vs. the chemical companies) Then there was the controversy about whether smoking was harmful to your health. (science vs. the tobacco industry). Nuclear radiation (science vs. the nuclear industry and the military together) We had another one about the ozone layer (science vs. hair spray) which I believe was successfully resolved, in part because the hair spray industry must have been disorganized or underfunded or something. The current big outstanding debates are on creation vs Evolution. (science vs. Evangelical Christians) and lately global warming (science vs. oil companies). In almost every case there has been a long drawn out, bitter controversy, pitting science against some special interest. The controversies waste time and money on both sides. People in general get confused and lose confidence in science and even in the educational system. In effect, the controversies hold back progress, while prolonging damage to our health, the environment, and to our general knowledge.

One reason it's so easy to hamstring science is because of the way the struggle is framed. Science is traditionally required to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that their current theories are correct. This of course is difficult to do at the best of times. For example, I hear comments from global warming deniers like "there is not one single shred of evidence that humans cause global warming". And they are right. There is not one shred of evidence that humans caused global warming.

How could you prove humans cause global warming with one single piece of evidence? I would think you might need to discover a human controlled "world thermostat" that regulates the temperature of the Earth. This is not going to happen, because we only have a series of relationships to trace to the root cause of warming. For example, we can prove that humans produce CO2. Then we can prove a relationship between CO2 levels and global temperature. But we can never prove beyond a shadow of doubt that there is no other source raising the CO2 levels. Especially if the other mystery source may be supernatural, which is beyond the scope of science.

Casting doubt only needs to make sense in a very superficial way, like a bumper sticker slogan. It requires no proof, it does not need to be scientific, it does not need to be logical. And significantly, casting doubt is more lucrative than science when corporations are involved. And it can be carried out by anyone with a sharp wit and poor understanding of objectivity.

Honest scientists cannot resort to propaganda to get their message out. They don't usually deal directly with the public anyway. They generally act as advisers to governments, industries, and school systems. If the sponsors don't like the findings of the scientists, they can ignore them. But the sponsors know that without an aggressive propaganda campaign, the truth will eventually come out to bite them. Actually, even with the propaganda, reality will bite them in the end.

Picture: I photoshopped the classic "head in the sand" onto a picture of a confused kid I found on the internet and manually added the equal sign and the question mark. I think it's art.