Did you know that:
- George Bush planned the September 11 attacks,
- MMR injection triggers autism in children,
- the ancient Greeks stole their ideas from Africa,
- Creation Science disproves evolution,
- homeopathy can defeat the AIDS virus,
- Jesus and Mary Magdalene sired a dynasty of Merovingian kings,
- MI5 killed Diana, Princess of Wales?
If you did know any of these things, you have been a victim of the pandemic of credulous thinking that is allegedly sweeping the planet. It is called counterknowledge - misinformation packaged to look like facts. And there is a lot of it about, apparently.
In a provocative new book - Counterknowledge: How We Surrendered to Conspiracy Theories, Quack Medicine, Bogus Science and False History by Damian Thompson - the author argues that since the Enlightenment we now have techniques for evaluating the truth of claims about science and history which are more reliable than ever before. However, for a whole variety of reasons more and more people are able to get hold of half understood information, partial truth, and are able to spread their creative imaginings with ease around the world in seconds.
And of course, once a theory has come to birth, it will attract further pseudo-evidence to support it. Once we have a theory that meets some need in our psyche, that creates meaning for us, we will find evidence to back it up. In my view (hey, I am just thinking aloud here, not claiming a universal truth that is backed up by empirical evidence, so don’t quote me on it) conspiracy theories and religion are ‘knowledge’ that is created to help human beings cope with existential reality - that we are alone on the planet and subject to chance happenings. Somehow we find it much more comforting to create a reason for something happening than allowing it to happen by accident.
A wonderful example of conspiracy theory spawning counterknowledge was provided by Thompson himself when writing about the release of his book. In order to publicize it he appeared on the BBC Radio 4 show, Start the Week. On a website supporting 9/11 conspiracy theories one contributor has already noticed that Damian shares the same surname as Mark Thompson, Head of the BBC, and implied that Damian’s arguments were only given prestigious credibility by being allowed on air because of an assumed (but non-existent) family link.
I confess, I have nearly been a victim of counterknowledge twice in the past few days. About a week ago I read a story on a Times blog about an American couple who were unable to adopt a child they had been caring for since birth because they were atheists. The source (The Times) seemed very credible. The account fitted into my own thinking - I had been picking up several pieces of information about how, even in 2008, it was more difficult to be an open atheist in the US than in the UK, and this provided further dramatic evidence.
I decided to write a blog about the topic, leading with the Times story which, I felt, gave the whole argument extra weight. About an hour after publication I received a comment from someone pointing out that the adoption story was true, but that it had happened a long time ago. She also provided a link to the original court documents from 1967. I withdrew my blog immediately and wrote to the Times about the misinformation. The Times apparently received several such letters and apologised the next day. But at least one other person that I was aware of picked up my original posting and ran it on his own blog, and I saw several other blogs running with The Times source. The internet enabled the ‘news’ to spread like wildfire.
A second example was the case of the fired non-smokers. Reuters News Agency ran a story about a smoking employer who sacked three non-smokers for being trouble makers when they asked for a separate non-smoking room at work. I very nearly blogged that, but in the end decided to run with something else. I am glad that I did, since that too proved to be a hoax. However, I am sure that the ‘fact’ of their dismissal has already entered the counterknowledge to be used in both sides of the smoking debate.
If the internet provides the means of spreading false information, the good news is that it also provides the means of enabling readers to check for themselves. In many cases it is possible to find the original research article or government reports or court documents. I suppose some very basic rules for helping to distinguish between ‘knowledge’ and ‘counterknowledge’ are:
- Wherever possible go to primary rather than secondary sources.
- Remember that one fact is a small basis for a theory. Look for substantial evidence. Ask how broad and credible the evidence base is.
- Remember that interpretation is just that: interpretation. Interpretation is not fact (though it is often quoted as such).
- Be aware of potential bias in the writer.
I was intrigued to learn that Damian Thompson is a self-confessed Roman Catholic who writes for Catholic publications as well as for The Daily Telegraph. I couldn’t help but wonder if there was a blind spot here. This man, who has championed Enlightenment methodology and the growth of science and historical accuracy in his book, still seems to be clinging to what many would consider to be the counterknowledge being spread by the church. Given what scholars have shown to be the problems associated with the biblical text, how they have contributed to our understandings about the workings of the human mind, and how they have developed a scientific methodology for testing the truth of the physical world, Thompson’s faith does seem slightly odd. Roman Catholic doctrines such as papal infallibility, the immaculate conception, and transubstantiation immediately spring to mind. It would be difficult to argue that such teachings were factual.
However, I am sure, that like all supporters of counterknowledge theories, he would be able to justify the anomaly if required to do so. And none of us are perfect. We are all very gullible at times.
See also: Italian Scientists Protest Against Papal Visit
We have all been caught and the sad fact is that, no matter how intelligent or “clued-up” we may be, there is no guarantee that we will not be caught again (and again).
The fact is that no one person can be an expert in all disciplines. We can individually verify reports about only a small number of subjects. We therefore have to rely on others to discern the truth. Unfortunately, deciding which “others” are themselves trustworthy is no trivial task. Moreover, like us, even respected authorities can be taken in, like those historians who believed the fake Hitler diaries to be genuine.
Any statement is as good as the evidence that supports it. Unfortunately, this simple fact is not well understood by the public. In fact, there is little understanding of what constitutes good evidence as opposed to mere hearsay. This is why I think that critical thinking ought to be taught in schools along with English and Mathematics.
Too often, as you say, people want to believe a particular story and will in that case accept low quality evidence or even not bother with evidence at all - “My mate John said it was true and that’s good enough for me.”
The human mind evolved to make snap decisions, decisions which can literally mean the difference between life and death. Often we don’t have the time to investigate our choice thoroughly and often too, the evidence simply isn’t there. “Quick thinking” carries evolutionary advantage but it can also spell disaster in individual cases.
I don’t think there is any foolproof method of avoiding being taken in or misled. For this reason we should perhaps be more understanding and less quick to judge people who make an honest mistake with the best of intentions.
Good post and good reminder to all of us in the blogging community to check our facts as much as possible. I appreciate that many of the more reputable bloggers are conscientious enough to include links to their sources in their posts, the Internet method of providing footnotes.
SilverTiger: Interesting point about the evolutionary acquired skill of making quick decisions. Thanks.
I try to be extremely careful about what I write about on here.
Once again, an excellent blog highlighting this problem.
I am a little wary of citing sources of info-incase they come back at you, to say you have misrepresented their information in some way, though I agree with the chaplain comments on this subject.
I think the key here is, as you say go to the primary source.
Thank you for sharing your own stories with us. I will bear all this in mind.
[...] and unsubstantiated rumours packaged to look like facts. At the end of a recent posting (Are You A Victim?) I expressed puzzlement that Damian Thompson, author of a new book on the counterknowledge, was [...]