When is it that a healthy amount of doubt and skepticism becomes a bad thing? When misinformers use it to question what has been scientifically proven and settled. That’s what we call doubt mongering (1,2).
The tobacco industry used this tactic to question the implication of cigarettes in lung cancer. This tactic has also appeared in climate change, and nuclear disarmament debates (1).Doubt mongers don’t try to convince you about their agenda, instead they create doubt on what’s proven scientifically. For example, instead of trying to convince you that tobacco or climate change is harmless, they state that the science is in doubt. This way they have you thinking that more information is needed before any regulation or policies are put in place (3).
A doubt monger will also (1):
Only present data that fits their agenda
Fund their own research hoping to get favorable results
Claim the solution would be more dangerous or too costly
Create the illusion of a disagreement among scientists
Publish in mainstream media to reach more people
Deflect the issue toward something irrelevant
Attack the science or the scientist’s reputation and motivation (sounds familiar? Check out our Ad Hominem attack post!)
When wondering if you may be faced with a doubt monger, ask yourself these questions (4):
Is the information coming from a legitimate source?
Is the expert specialized in the field?
Is the expert associated or paid by an organization to whom the allegations would benefit or disadvantage?
If you answered yes to one or more of these questions, you might be dealing with a doubt monger!
When is it that a healthy amount of doubt and skepticism becomes a bad thing?
When misinformers use your healthy doubt and skepticism to question what has been scientifically proven and settled, it’s called doubt mongering. #ScienceUpFirst
A new study suggests it is possible to inoculate against misinformation by using short videos to educate against common manipulation techniques, including “emotionally manipulative language, incoherence, false dichotomies, scapegoating, and ad hominem attacks.” The videos “improve manipulation technique recognition, boost confidence in spotting these techniques, increase people’s ability to discern trustworthy from untrustworthy content, and improve the quality of their sharing decisions.” (Aug 24, 2022)
Attacking someone’s character does not invalidate their arguments.
Ad Hominem comes from the Latin ‘to the person”. An Ad Hominem attack is used to discredit the person to invalidate their argument, rather than discrediting the argument itself (1,2). By doing so misinformers are calling for people’s emotion, which is a very powerful tool (3,4).
There are many types of Ad hominem arguments (3,5). Let’s use an example to explain each type. In this example you argue that “chocolate cake is the best kind of cake!”
An abusive argument would directly attack you. “Well, your shoes are ugly, so how would you know if chocolate cake is the best type of cake?”
A credential fallacy argument would discredit your knowledge → “You don’t own a bakery so what would you know about cake anyway?”
A circumstantial argument will question the veracity of your argument because of your motive → “You’re only saying that because your neighbour owns a bakery.”
A guilt by association argument will discredit you because of your association with something negative → “Criminals also eat chocolate cakes so you must be a criminal”
A “Tu Quoque” (from the Latin “so are you”) argument will use your past actions to discredit your argument. “Well, I’ve seen you eat vanilla cake before so clearly you’re lying.”
So how do you deal with an Ad Hominem attack? You can:
Acknowledge the attack
Point out the irrelevance of the attack
Simply ignore the attack
“I understand that you don’t like my shoes, but that has nothing to do with chocolate cake.”
Thanks to Jordan Collver for collaborating with us on this post. Jordan is an illustrator and science communicator specializing in using the visual and narrative power of comics to explore themes of science, nature, and belief.
Attacking someone’s personality does not invalidate their arguments. Yet that is what the Ad Hominem attack (from the Latin ‘to the person”) attempts to do!#ScienceUpFirst
A recent study evaluated “interventions aimed at reducing viral misinformation online both in isolation and when used in combination.” The results suggest that isolated misinformation interventions are unlikely to be effective on their own, but a “combined approach” can lead to a “substantial reduction” in misinformation prevalence. (Jun 23, 2022)
More and more research has found a connection between health misinformation and mental health issues. A recent study, for example, found “users who shared COVID-19 misinformation experienced approximately two times additional increase in anxiety when compared to similar users who did not share misinformation.” While this research is correlational in nature, it does remind us of the potential mental health costs of misinformation. ( June 2nd, 2022)
Why does misinformation spread further and deeper than content that is scientifically accurate? A 2022 study suggests that misinformation is often emotional, negative, focused on morality, and easier to process as compared to content that is factual. The misinformation plays to our cognitive biases, such as the negativity bias, making it more memorable and shareable. (June 2nd, 2022)
Put this study on the growing mountain of evidence that has found that the spread of misinformation is linked to vaccination hesitancy. Indeed, this research found that the “associations between vaccine outcomes and misinformation remain significant when accounting for political as well as demographic and socioeconomic factors.” (June 2nd, 2022)
At the beginning of the pandemic we thought the virus could only spread via droplets (1). But now we know that much smaller particles, known as aerosols, can carry the virus too (2,3).
Like milk, there’s a reason some information goes bad or changes. The main reason is that our knowledge and understanding of the virus are also changing, or evolving (4,5).
@statcan_eng found that most Canadians will look for other sources or will read the full article to confirm the information they found online is correct. But only 29% will check when the article was published (6).
This can be a problem because misinformers sometimes use old information as proof to fit their narrative, even though our understanding of the subject has deepened over time (4,7).
So yes, dates are important, especially in the always changing COVID-19 world, and there is nothing wrong with changing your tune if it is supported by evidence! Before you share any piece of information, always make sure to check if newer information is available.
Share this with your friends to make sure they share only the most up-to-date information!
Share our original Tweet!
Does information go bad, like milk?
Yes!
Keep reading to learn why you should always check the dates.#ScienceUpFirst
When science communication is available in multiple languages it reaches more people and is way more effective (1). That’s one of the many reasons we are thrilled to partner with Lotus STEMM!
Lotus STEMM (@lotusstemm) is a not-for-profit organization that seeks to support and improve the representation of South Asian women in traditional and non-traditional STEMM professions (did you know that STEMM stands for Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Medicine?).
They provide much-needed multilingual COVID-19 science communication for South Asian communities, especially during the heightened confusion about mandates and conflicting misinformation. And when we say multilingual, we mean it! They’ve created informative YouTube videos in a total of 11 different languages (2)!
We’re very excited to support Lotus STEMM by providing COVID-19 science communication content from our ScienceUpFirst accounts! Our posts are being translated into Farsi, Hindi, Pashto, Sinhala, Tamil, and Urdu by their extensive network of volunteers (3), all for the best impact and cultural relevance.
We look forward to our ongoing partnership with Lotus STEMM in their valuable work to engage South Asian women and girls (and their communities) in STEMM.
Share our original Tweet!
When science communication is in multiple languages it can reach more people and is WAY more effective.
You know what they say… beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing… or lions in zebra stripes.
Or… accounts that share antivax content using blue and yellow graphics and the hashtag #ScienceUpFirst. Clearly they’re trying to capitalize on the trust we’ve built with our colours and style.
A common tactic used by misinformers and scam artists is to appear legit by putting on the trappings of real information sources.
It’s a versatile and effective tactic. Here are some things to watch out for:
When an account uses misleading, emotive names and hashtags that include phrases like “truth” and “freedom”
Overusing scientific jargon incorrectly to appear well-informed. For example, “The quantum interference of neural antibodies coagulates the blood serum, leading to antibody rejection and histocompatibility errors.”
Using similar URLs or account names that could be easily mistyped.
Want to learn more?
Check out Get Bad News, a game developed by researchers in the UK and Sweden that lets you try your hand at being an impostor online: https://getbadnews.com
Evaluations of the game show that learning about these tactics with fake examples actually innoculates you against the real thing: https://tinyurl.com/SUFBadNews
Thanks to Jordan Collver for collaborating with us on this post. Jordan is an illustrator and science communicator specializing in using the visual and narrative power of comics to explore themes of science, nature, and belief.
You know what they say, beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing.
Or… antivax accounts that share content w/ our hashtag and blue/yellow graphics, trying to capitalize on the trust we’ve built with our style #ScienceUpFirst
When COVID-19 was first reported in early 2020, not much was known about the disease. It was a virus-borne respiratory illness, featuring flu-like symptoms such as fever, cough, aches, and shortness of breath. Early estimates of its case fatality rate (CFR) were lower than SARS and MERS, and its rate of spread roughly the same as the flu. It was generally assumed that transmission was primarily through respiratory droplets, and possibly direct contact, as is the case for many other common respiratory diseases. Doesn’t sound so bad, does it?
Is COVID-19 “like the flu” or “like Ebola”?
Comparing COVID-19 to the flu indeed “anchored” many to the idea that COVID-19 is “no big deal”, despite quickly updating analyses suggesting a much higher fatality rate, a high reproduction rate, evidence of airborne spread, asymptomatic transmission, and long-COVID symptoms. Indeed, a later survey by Southwell et al 2020 showed: “Past influenza vaccination behavior predicted willingness to get a COVID-19 vaccine in the future among Americans.” That is, despite newer information about the severity of COVID-19, respondents continued to anchor their decisions to the flu.
Now imagine that instead of the flu, early reports compared COVID-19 to a more fear-inducing disease: It is a virus-borne respiratory illness, featuring Ebola-like symptoms such as fever, sore throat, aches, and fatigue. It is far deadlier than Ebola, with a similar reproduction rate. Unlike Ebola however, which is mostly transmitted through direct contact, COVID-19 is a respiratory disease that can also be transmitted through respiratory droplets, and is potentially airborne. A little more terrifying now? All of this information was available early on in the pandemic, and the disease could just as easily have been compared to Ebola as it was to the flu. Do you think this might have affected social distancing, masking, or vaccine uptake?
Anchors aweigh!
The order in which information is presented is important because the human brain naturally favours earlier information over evidence provided later. This phenomenon is called the anchoring effect :
“The anchoring effect is a cognitive bias that describes the common human tendency to rely too heavily on the first piece of information offered”
It’s not that people don’t adjust their initial impressions at all, but rather that they under-adjust given new information – this is why the bias is sometimes referred to as the anchor-and-adjust heuristic.
One of the most common ways to study this is to tell people how difficult a task is before asking them how well they think they’ll do. Given the same task, people primed to think it will be hard (a low anchor) will rate themselves as less able and then will give up quicker than those who were primed to think it would be easy (a high anchor).
There has also been lots of research in the economic sphere. The anchoring effect is responsible for your brain thinking something that’s on sale for $80 down from $100 is better than the same item just listed for $80 originally.
In one famous experiment, students were asked to write down the last two digits of their social security number and then rate how much they would pay for certain items. Those with higher numbers said they would pay more than those with lower social security numbers.
However, public views were slow to adjust from initial impressions (image from Li et al, 2022). The graph below shows the willingness to wear a mask in the USA (blue) and in China (red). In the USA, where mask-wearing was not the norm before, it took almost 6 months for public perception to catch up to the science.
The study authors speculate:
“… prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, Americans had very low expectations that wearing masks would protect against seasonal influenza. This low perceived efficacy may be one key reason for the slow adoption of mask wearing by our U.S. participants early in the pandemic. However, as scientific evidence accumulated and authorities began to clearly endorse mask wearing, most U.S. participants became more willing to wear masks in public space.”
The good news from this study is that views do adjust, eventually. In general, the science and public health communications experts suggest leveraging trust, expert opinion, consistent messaging, and audience-specific messages, as best practices in science communication.
Written by Anthony Morgan
Edited by Jon Farrow
Share our original Tweet!
Thought experiment:
What if, in January 2020, headlines read:
“There’s a new virus with symptoms like Ebola: Fever, sore throat, aches, and fatigue.” #ScienceUpFirst
A new study investigated how the “characteristics of misinformation” is different from factual sources. The author’s found misinformation content is easier to understand, emotional, and negative. What does this mean? While all misinformation is harmful, different types of misinformation occur, and we can’t “treat all misinformation equally.” (May 9, 2022)
