Entry 2284, on 2023-08-02 at 22:31:12 (Rating 3, Philosophy)
People are easily lead astray, misled, and misinformed. Even for someone who identifies as a skeptic, and makes a real effort to avoid being mislead, there is no guarantee that they won't make the occasional mistake and believe something they really shouldn't.
Some people believe "fake news" because it fits their political, religious, or philosophical preferences. For other people, they just believe what they are told, and might believe the complete opposite the next day.
As an example, a friend of mine has recently become interested in the Moon hoax. This is a conspiracy theory that the moon landings of the late 60s and 70s were all faked, and that humans have never actually visited the Moon.
Believers in this theory list a long list of what they consider "anomalies" in the Apollo missions which resulted in the first Moon landing, Apollo 11 in 1969, which was followed by several others: Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17. You might remember that the Apollo 13 mission was aborted after a fault, and it took great skill by NASA engineers to save the crew.
This friend heard about the conspiracy from a presumably intelligent medical professional, and he was quite convinced at the time, but after listening to me dispute all the points the other person had made, and pointing out how various other facts make the hoax very unlikely, he was quite convinced by my points. However, he said that he might be convinced of the other side if he listened to the other person again.
At this point you might be thinking that I would think he's an idiot, because who would be so stupid that they would believe a crazy conspiracy like that, but that's not really the way I look at it. I encourage people to look at every side of a subject, and to consider all possibilities. I also maintain that we can never be completely sure that any theory about the real world is true; there is always room for doubt.
So, as I have said in past blog posts, if I am being more technically precise, I would say I believe something with a percentage certainty. For example, I might say I think there is a 95% chance that evolution is true, an 80% chance that the Big Bang is, a 50% chance that COVID came from a lab, etc. Note that when the certainty level gets into the 80s or 90s, I often say I believe that thing is true without quoting a number, but that is just a convenient shorthand for what I really think.
So I think there is about an 80% chance that the Moon landings really happened, and if you refer to the web page I have written on the subject, where I dismiss all the doubts of the conspiracy theorists, you will see why. The doubts people have generally are based on misunderstandings, lack of detailed knowledge, or just some sort of preference for bizarre theories. And the fact that the person my friend listened to is a medical professional doens't mean much, because people who are good at one thing very often make mistakes involving other fields.
Without getting into obscure technical details, here are a few simple points which should make a Moon hoax believer reconsider their beliefs...
First, why did the Americans build multiple Saturn V rockets, which many people saw launched, and one of which still exists because it was never used. These were by far the biggest flying machines ever built, and cost a huge amount. Why build them if they weren't needed for a real mission?
Second, what about the Moon rocks which were returned and distributed to many researchers around the world. None of those people suggested the rocks were fake; even those who might be tempted to minimise the achievements of the US.
Third, astronomers and other scientists have bounced lasers off the reflectors left on the Moon by these missions. It's possible they could have been placed by robotic missions, but is that theory likely?
Fourth, the photos and movies of events on the Moon, including the "Moon buggy" moving across the surface, could be faked fairly easily today, but the technology to do that at the time of the missions didn't exist, and creating the technology needed to make those movies could have cost as much as the actual mission!
But there are possible counters to all of these, which is why we should never assign certainty to the belief that the missions were real.
But getting back to the more general point of this post: listening to one side of a story is likely to be quite convincing to a lot of people. Anyone who wants to be properly informed should hear all possible perspectives, and decide on balance what they think is most likely.
And does that happen? Well no, it doesn't, because the major source of news for most people, the mainstream media, are notoriously biased. Many independent evaluations show the majority of media are strongly oriented to favouring left-wing political views, especially in relation to political correctness.
So when people are constantly exposed to one view only, they are likely to believe that view, just like my friend was persuaded by the Moon hoax conspiracy. Note that whether people believe something has little to do with whether it is true or not, it is primarily related to how often they hear the case supporting that view.
At the risk of being accused of succumbing to Godwin's Law, it's like the Nazi propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, said: "tell a lie often enough, at it becomes the truth" (that's a paraphrase of the actual words he used.)
I would like to see both sides of most stories being presented by the media. Maybe they could arrange a debate featuring people with different views on a subject, instead of just interviewing a person who presents just the side they favour.
But it's not that simple, unfortunately. There are some views which are less worthy than others. For example, if a scientist has discovered a new fossil which adds to our knowledge of human evolution, we shouldn't necessarily hear the views of a creationist as well, although hearing from them occasionally is entertaining.
So it's not easy, and I don't think there is a perfect answer, but I would like to see a bit more balance, a bit more debate, a bit more questioning of established beliefs.
Finally, here are a few situations where I would like to see "alternative" views presented more...
1. Climate change. I think climate change is real, and I think at least some of it is caused by human activities, but there is some reasonable cause for doubt, and at the very least, what the best way to deal with it is well worth debating. I would also like to see the legitimacy of phrases like "climate crisis" and "global boiling" debated in a reasonable way.
But the media only present one side; they never (or very rarely) feature any of the skeptics (and I don't mean deniers here); and they use phrases like "climate crisis" as if they actually meant something instead of simply being catch-phrases created by activists.
2. The origin of COVID. I am really stuck in the middle regarding whether the SARS-CoV-2 virus originated in that lab in Wuhan, or whether it was natural. When I hear either side being presented I find it quite convincing, just like my friend sees the Moon hoax.
But if I only listened to the mainstream media, I might not even know that the lab-leak theory existed, and I certainly wouldn't take it seriously.
3. Racial and cultural issues. This is the big one because of the current infatuation the media, and many politicians, have with race politics. I would like to hear all of the causes of inequities; whether they are unfairness in society, or cultural problems.
But the mainstream media would never even consider the possibility that some of the bad outcomes for minorities might relate to deficiencies in their culture, even though that is undoubtedly a factor. How much of a factor? Who knows, it's never even discussed.
So whether it's issues to do with COVID, or climate change, or racial equity, or the Moon landings, I think there is room for multiple views, and I would prefer to evaluate them myself, instead of the biased and corrupt media doing it for me.
Comment 1 (7471) by Anonymous on 2023-08-06 at 14:33:44:
You say you aren't a conspiracy theory but you believe in conspiracies like the lab leak and you don't believe global warming. Maybe it is time to re-think the claim that you aren't a conspiracy believer.
Comment 2 (7472) by OJB on 2023-08-07 at 13:01:00:
Well, it all gets back to definition of the term "conspiracy theorist" doesn't it? Maybe these are conspiracies, maybe they're not. Also note that some conspiracies are real, so don't just automatically reject them!
Comment 3 (7473) by Anonymous on 2023-08-08 at 17:12:18:
I am particularly interested in your last two paragraphs. Recently the Southland Times wrote to me regarding an increase in their subscription. This was my reply...
Thank you for your recent email regarding an increase in subscription fees.
Quite frankly I will have to give serious consideration regarding renewing my subscription. I cannot agree with your opinion that you have an award winning team of journalists. To my mind you have journalists based in major cities not presenting news but their own politically slanted viewpoint on the news.
I am interested in what happens and if this is accurately presented to me I will draw my own conclusions on the matter concerned rather than rely on the diatribe of your journalist.
Quite frankly I doubt if your publication is worth the price you are now suggesting. You may like to consider using this letter in your opinion section of the Southland Times.
Regards
Comment 4 (7474) by OJB on 2023-08-08 at 20:07:46:
Exactly my point. The mainstream media must be under the illusion that the majority go along with their woke agenda. Sure, some people do, but many more don't, which explains the demise of the media today. I see Stuff are about to reduce their staff, and I think most of the other conventional media companies are struggling. It is partly due to alternative sources on the internet, but I think a lot of it is people know they are being mislead, not by lies, but by the media being selective about what material they present.
Comment 5 (7475) by Anonymous on 2023-08-08 at 20:42:46:
Glad you agreed with me
Allan
Comment 6 (7476) by Anonymous on 2023-08-12 at 23:34:20:
"It is partly due to alternative sources on the internet, but I think a lot of it is people know they are being mislead, not by lies, but by the media being selective about what material they present"
Yeah, would love to see your evidence on this (if indeed you have any). I suspect the move away from traditional media is more to do with the way people consume news via social media and other channels. I suspect this is more likely the reason than your proposed widespread dissatisfaction.
Comment 7 (7477) by OJB on 2023-08-13 at 10:42:07:
I'm sure that the convenience of on-line media is part of the story, but note that most mainstream media have put more of their material on-line, yet they are still failing. As far as evidence is concerned: there is clear evidence that the vast majority of MSM is left biased; this comes from many independent sources. Apart form that, I guess it's mainly anecdotes, but also perception, because many people think that is the case, which might or might not match reality (I say it does).
Thanks for reading this blog post. Please leave a message below.
You can leave comments about this entry using this form.
To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add. Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry. The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.
BLOG PAGE