"Lies, Damn Lies and Counterknowledge"

[LesMTS]

Originally Posted by endless psych

I pretty much agree with that aye.

I meant to add a bit in about how the traditional means for scientists to disseminate information, through peer reviewd journals, kind of alienates the public. Particularly the insistence against informing the press before the article is accepted for publishing. It leaves a gap in newspaper schedules that most editors seem happy to fill with psuedo-scientific nonsense.

You would argue for informing the popular press before a study has been accepted by a peer-reviewed journal?

[MarkMono]

Whether a theory has been peer-reviewed and approved doesn't make a blind bit of difference if the theory doesn't make sense to me.

And is only of secondary importance if it does.

[endless psych]

Originally Posted by LesMTS

You would argue for informing the popular press before a study has been accepted by a peer-reviewed journal?

I didn't intend it as an arguement for that process, as indoctrined into the systemic values of the scientific community as I maybe , merely as a plausable explanation why so called "counter knowledge" gains prominence in the media.

Also as implied by Marks post (I think) the peer review process means shit all to most folks reading the science columns in their sunday broadsheets. Although probably the main problem is that most research is fairly banal and of interest only to other specialists working in the same area of research.

[MarkMono]

I have the same problem talking about skateboarding, which is why I don't.

I'm aware of the importance of the peer-review approach, but it really only is one facet of the process of analysing information and evaluating its validity.

[LesMTS]

Originally Posted by MarkMono

I have the same problem talking about skateboarding, which is why I don't.

I'm aware of the importance of the peer-review approach, but it really only is one facet of the process of analysing information and evaluating its validity.

Yeah, you're totally right. A publication in a journal is really only the first tiny, but necessary, step in evaluating the validity of a hypothesis. All it basically says is "aye, your methodology checks out and your conclusions are a reasonable interpretation of your data". Repeat and related studies, the "test of time", practical appliance etc are all more important.
Most journal publications are like getting a song played by Jim Gellatly.

[MarkMono]

It feels good the first time and after that you just don't care?

[LesMTS]

Originally Posted by MarkMono

It feels good the first time and after that you just don't care?

Hahaha, I guess.
I was thinking more in terms of becoming an established and respected act.

I mean, Jim Gellatly will still play your songs when you're respected and established but Jim Gellatly playing them does not, itself, indicate a great level of worthiness.
This Gellatly analogy doesn't hold for supa-Journals like Nature and the like.

[metallideth]

The article reminds me of the Richard Dawkins programme I saw on Channel 4 last year. The title escapes me at the moment, but the basic crux of it was Dawkins holding religion and alternative medicine (and relativist attitudes towards these) under a gaze of 'objectivity' in order to prove them to be a crock of shite. Funnily enough, of course, he did not extend this 'objectivity' to any of the ideas - science/rationality being the same thing, boorish miss-the-point liberalism and atheism - that he was trying to thrust on the audience.

So now the author of "How We Surrendered to Conspiracy Theories" is complaining about people joining up fragments to create a bigger picture that doesn't necessarily exist. I wonder if objectivity would give him the opportunity to step back and spot the irony here.

[Dario]

Originally Posted by metallideth

The article reminds me of the Richard Dawkins programme I saw on Channel 4 last year. The title escapes me at the moment, but the basic crux of it was Dawkins holding religion and alternative medicine (and relativist attitudes towards these) under a gaze of 'objectivity' in order to prove them to be a crock of shite. Funnily enough, of course, he did not extend this 'objectivity' to any of the ideas - science/rationality being the same thing, boorish miss-the-point liberalism and atheism - that he was trying to thrust on the audience.

So now the author of "How We Surrendered to Conspiracy Theories" is complaining about people joining up fragments to create a bigger picture that doesn't necessarily exist. I wonder if objectivity would give him the opportunity to step back and spot the irony here.

I believe "The Enemies of Reason" is the one you're referring to. To be fair, I do think that Dawkins had some valid points there, and I don't remember him mentioning anything about holding religion and alternative medicine under a "gaze of objectivity" per se. The documentary was more of an attempt to demonstrate Dawkins' already well-documented contentions, rather than an actual work of investigative journalism, which would have required a level of objectivity to be upheld. I also don't recall him implying that science and rationality were the "same thing" at any point, but rather, using science as a manifest example of rationality at work. Although, I would agree that the documentary left a lot to be desired, as it seemed somewhat cocky and condescending at times, and sometimes looked more like an effort on Dawkins' part to smugly wallow in his recent popularity, than one aimed at coming up with anything constructive.

Back on the subject of this Damian Thompson article, it comes across to me as very heavily politically motivated, rather than a sincere critique of the rise of conspiracy theories. The article has an underlying tone the message of which essentially seems to be "don't question authority in any way", the kind of message that is typical of someone who is partial to that bitter and divisive "you're either with us or against us" mentality which is often found in politics lately. The Islamophobic nature of some of the things that he's written doesn't help matters any, either.

Ironically, that kind of either/or approach which has reared its head in politics so often is exactly the kind of attitude that alienates people and thus might make them even more susceptible to conspiracy theories, as a way of compensating for their sense of disaffection.

While I consider a lot of the points made in the article to be accurate enough, I'm quite dubious about what intentions lay behind it.

[endless psych]

Originally Posted by Dario

While I consider a lot of the points made in the article to be accurate enough, I'm quite dubious about what intentions lay behind it.

The agenda that lay behind it are most probably increasing book sales figures based intentions.

[Dario]

Originally Posted by endless psych

The intentions that lay behind it are most probably increasing book sales figures based intentions.

"Agenda" would've been better.

[endless psych]

Originally Posted by Dario

"Agenda" would've been better.

You know your right.

The undercurrents in the article are either an attempt to convinvce torygraph readers to buy it - as it gives them a stick to hit the liberal left with. Or he does hold some quite right wing and poorly disguised views about the superiority of the West. (and the enlightenment but thats by the by)

[MarkMono]

Originally Posted by LesMTS

Hahaha, I guess.
I was thinking more in terms of becoming an established and respected act.

I mean, Jim Gellatly will still play your songs when you're respected and established but Jim Gellatly playing them does not, itself, indicate a great level of worthiness.
This Gellatly analogy doesn't hold for supa-Journals like Nature and the like.

supa-Journals.

Love it.

[metallideth]

Originally Posted by Dario

I believe "The Enemies of Reason" is the one you're referring to.
.

That's the one. It just kind of encapsulated a lot of things I've found annoying about Dawkins work - this subtle suggestion throughout that he is led to total objectivity through science, a discipline apparently untainted by the human hand. For someone so anti-religious he does seem to hold on to a lot of 'sacred' concepts. But anyway, back on topic...

I think the views in the article are actually consistent with a lot of London media "left-wingers" who I wouldn't consider particularly left-wing at all. Nick Cohen comes to mind. Basically people who consider liberal democracy, as promoted (exported at gunpoint?) by Western governments, as the pinnacle of freedom and equality.

At the same time it's ridiculous watching self-avowed left-wingers, who're supposed to have a radical class analysis, holding up placards saying "We Are All Hezbollah" at demonstrations, as an example. And RE: a lot of the September 11th conspiracy theories, it disappoints me that a lot of people don't see them for what they are - just another bit of agit-prop from the American isolationist right. Thing is, though, that any left-wingers with a sense of history should know about the secretive nature of the state and the concerted efforts of supposed democracies to destroy the left-wing throughout the 20th century. And instead of jizzing their pants about proud traditions of liberty and rational thinking in this country, they should be taking a look at how often various establishments that claim to represent these principles go to extreme lengths to subvert them.

[MarkMono]

Oh to be a career splitter.