Information and misinformation glut: leading to a glut of problems

Introduction

I've been wondering for about the problems with regards to public perception that science (especially climatology) have been suffering for the last little while. Here are my thoughts.

Information glut

A long time ago, I read about the concept of information glut in Neil Postman's book Technopoly. Basically, people are deluged with so much information that the information ceases to be useful due to: 1) the inability of most people to absorb such large quantities of information, 2) the oversimplification of concepts in order to increase the volume of information delivered, and 3) the less important (even irrelevant) information dug up in order to boost the aforementioned volume of information.

The end result is the retention of less information, as well as less understanding of what actually is retained.

Misinformation glut

The problem with having an information glut is that it becomes easier to add misinformation to the mix. With less understanding of actual information, it is more difficult to separate information from misinformation. For example, realistic-sounding technobabble (as opposed to the more obvious and ridiculous-sounding "Treknobabble") starts to sound like legitimate scientific terms to an untrained person.

Does "giant magnetoresistance" sound like something real? Is it real? (It actually is real, by the way.)

Some misinformation is unintentional or simple misunderstanding. Some misinformation is driven by those with ulterior motives. With regards to evolution, the Discovery Institute comes to mind. There are plenty of groups trying to discredit climate scientists and climate change.

Unintentional misinformation is unavoidable, but the intentional addition of misinformation to the information/misinformation glut is a major problem. A key reason is the fact that we live in democratic societies, where government decisions are influenced by the populace, which would ideally be informed rather than misinformed. (The unfounded claim of WMDs in Iraq is a particularly depressing political example of misinformation leading to horrific consequences.)

Misinformation about information

Science is twofold in its purpose: to gain a deep understanding of how the universe and its constituent components work, and to be able to make accurate predictions about the universe and its constituent components. (I say "constituent components" because, for example, biology is not a direct study of the universe but of something within the universe. Furthermore, it is currently impossible to study outside the known universe, although some scientists are trying to come up with experiments.)

The key strengths of science are its ability to make predictions based upon existing understanding and observation, and its self-correcting nature. Predictions based upon misinformation will not be accurate (barring occasional flukes, I suppose). Misinformation is also not self-correcting, aside from possibly trying to sound "scientific". In fact, deliberate misinformation is often very consistent because one of science's strengths is also yields weakness in fighting misinformation (at least in the eyes of the general public).

With regards to science, the fact that science is self-correcting is seen as a weakness. This is often argued to be "wavering" in position by those who intentionally spread misinformation. For example, with regards to evolution, biologists debating over finer details of evolutionary theory is often argued to be a "controversy" by creationists. (Some creationists go even further by claiming that the only reason why "evolutionists" stand by evolution despite the "controversy" is due to ideology.)

Another (indirect) strength of science can also be turned against science. People (rightfully) credit science for a great number of medical and technological successes, but human knowledge across different fields of science vary. Knowledge in some disciplines may be incomplete for the time being. In this sense, the successes from one field of science can be used against another field of science (as in, "is this field valid, given that another field of science is so much more complete?"). For example, with regards to cosmology, scientist are able to predict the expansion of the universe with dark energy using the "cosmological constant", but there is currently little (if any) understanding of dark energy itself. Some creationists use this incomplete knowledge to attack the credibility of cosmology in general (due to the acceptance of the Big Bang Theory).

Sometimes, imprecision is used to question accuracy, especially with regards to climatology. (Yes, there is a difference between precision and accuracy. A prediction can be accurate and imprecise if there is a large predicted range. A prediction can be accurate and precise if there is a small predicted range. Ideally, both accuracy and precision are desired, but that is not always possible given the lack of data for certain variables.)

With regards to climatology, weather is effectively only noise with regards to climate (and not even significant noise). Weather is difficult to predict partly due to the atmosphere's turbulent nature but mostly due to insufficient computing power (which requires simplified to be used models). The well-known method for reducing noise (from a mathematical standpoint) is to use larger time scales so that the noise "averages out"... which bodes well for climate studies. Despite this, the false argument that the inability to predict weather implies an inability to predict climate is often made (as in, "you can't even predict the weather beyond a few days... how can you predict the climate?"). Here, there is also conflation between meteorology and climatology, as well as oversimplification of a topic.

A final strategy often used to question science is what I call the "eternal whys". Ask "why" (or "how") enough times about anything (not just related to science), and even the most experienced of experts will end up flustered. This strategy also has related forms, e.g. for every two transitional fossils, creationists demand for yet another transitional fossil between the two fossils of interest.

Putting misinformation on equal footing to information

Notice a common theme yet? The first part of any intentional misinformation campaign is to attempt to discredit information by raising as many questions as possible.

The second part of an intentional misinformation campaign is to provide a false alternative to information: the misinformation itself. If crafted properly, it will sound as though there is legitimate debate about the topic at hand. The more complex the topic (such as climate), the easier it becomes to raise questions (legitimate or not) and craft a good-sounding "argument".

Of course, one may ask what differentiates legitimate and illegitimate debate. After all, if one asks a valid question, is it not the start of a valid debate? Well, the answer is two-fold. Firstly, a commonly-accepted theory is often the one that is the best predictor. Unless there is an actual alternative that improves the accuracy and/or precision of the predictions, the commonly-accepted theory will remain. Secondly, a scientist should already be aware of (and working to solve) the drawbacks in any existing theory. As such, raising questions is only raising questions. A real debate requires a real alternative to be offered.

(Additionally, I should note that there is a certain support for the "underdog" mentality that seems to stem from the individualism in our society. "Maverick scientists" are given too much credit due to the appeal of an individual making a difference. In reality, science develops reasonably slowly, and individuals' work are based upon the work of their predecessors. For example, Einstein's general theory of relativity has replaced Newton's law of gravity due to the more accurate predictions made by Einstein's theory, an actual example of one firmly-entrenched theory being replaced by another. Despite the amazing work accomplished by Einstein, one must ask whether Einstein would have developed his theories of relativity without Hendrik Lorentz's transformations or Riemannian geometry?)

The third part of an intentional misinformation campaign is to establish oneself as a "trusted" source of alternative "information" while discrediting the sources of actual information. While it may seem detrimental to resort to a logical fallacy such as an ad hominem, it actually works because much of our society is dependent upon appeals to authority (another logical fallacy, but due to necessity). For example, I have a degree from an accredited university, and I have been judged by professors who have degrees from other universities. When I apply for a job, I rely on my degree as evidence that I can perform the applicable work. I've basically appealed to the authorities of my university, my professors, and my professors' universities all in one go.

In society, the work of experts are supposed to be trusted. I can talk about four-stroke engines and camshafts, but if you want your car fixed, you should find an actual automotive technician. The same goes for any field of expertise, including science. By chipping away at that trust, the information provided by such experts becomes less certain to the public eye. It's a logical fallacy, but again, in a society where appeal to authority is required to work, attempting to discrediting experts also works. Most commonly, those spreading misinformation accuse scientists as being a group of close-minded ideologues unwilling to give a "fair opportunity" to other ideas.

One must remember that the goal of a number of misinformation campaigners (such as lobbies for the oil industry against effective climate change legislation) is simply to split public sentiment. It is unnecessary for a majority of people to believe in the misinformation. As long as there is a split public sentiment, there will be the corresponding indecisiveness and status quo in government.

Fighting misinformation: where we are at

Going back to the information glut, it is difficult to get across a message quickly and effectively to combat misinformation. News organizations often give equal time to both scientists and misinformation campaigners. Sound bites and short debates are often reduced to scientists confidently saying that the "science is sound", appealing to the authority of science while misinformation campaigners keep raising questions that can be asked quickly but cannot be answered quickly, trying to discredit that authority.

The necessary dirty work comes from raising questions about the credibility of those intentionally spreading misinformation, or else they may only grow in credibility. (That is to say, ignoring them and hoping that they'll go away is not enough.)

Unfortunately, the result of such exchanges only results in people believing who they feel is more credible, which may or may not turn out favourably. Rarely is there time to discuss the actual topic due to the topic being too complex to actually debate in a short time span.

Given the limited time, it has been suggested by some that the mainstream media deny time to the spreaders of misinformation in order to remove the "false balance" created by the apparent necessity for mainstream news to present two opposing viewpoints. The Internet, however, provides another avenue for other arguments and is becoming increasingly relied-upon as a source of information. Denying time on mainstream media for misinformation in the past has only lead to cries of being suppressed from misinformation spreaders, appealing to the public's sense of "fairness".

Another solution may be to sufficiently interest people into performing their own studying on various topics in order to educate themselves. This gives them time to absorb material as well as gain an understanding of the topics of interest. While this is the ideal case, there are also problems with this approach. There could possibly be mistakes made on the way (who has ever understood everything that they have tried to learn?). Furthermore, the Internet is sufficiently vast that it is conceivable that instead of presenting all arguments in detail, it allows those with preconceptions to find like-minded individuals without allowing time for learning about opposing arguments. Again, this goes back to the existence of a misinformation glut in conjunction with the information glut.

-----------------------------------------

The problems are significant, and there are no ideal solutions. Personally, I think that inspiring people to educate themselves, as well as epistemology (theory of knowledge) courses in schools, are the start of the correct path. It is especially important for more people to learn about epistemology, as they will gain an understanding of how knowledge is acquired, the first step to becoming a rational and critical thinker.

Peace and long life (and sorry for going on for this long...).