‘Give me back my fact: How can social science help us survive the post-truth pandemic?’, Campaign for Social Science SAGE Annual Lecture 2020

[rvallee]

But what evidence do they have that belief in "fake facts" is
(a) higher than in the past?
(e.g. 20 years ago, 50 years ago and 100 years ago)
(b) prevalent in society, rather than just a minority of individuals?

Do they distinguish between science-like facts that are proliferated by the mainstream media that aren't actually based on high quality evidence, like the theory that severe COVID symptoms are due to "cytokine storms" or that "VUI-202012/01" has higher transmissibility than other SARS-CoV-2 variants or the theory that long-covid symptoms that are shared with ME/CFS are due to fundamentally different mechanisms?

That's a common trope people keep using to push their agenda. Disinformation has always been around, especially before the printed press. There is no more or less today, even fake news, which used to be called yellow journalism. Obviously people were far more ignorant at any point before the 20th century. But this doesn't jibe with the conclusions some people wish to push and so they repeat this obvious nonsense.

Disinformation is well-covered in The art of war. It's been weaponized for thousands of years, for tiny personal battles or continental warfare alike. And it's not as if there is this whole big thing everyone knows about we call snake oil peddlers, if someone tries to push the idea that it's old but a new phenomenon in medicine. It just fits people's agendas and so they lie to themselves and to the world. Just like the idea of a "malady of modern society", which began long before electricity has been around, promoted more than ever today despite life being absurdly better than when this nonsense was first proposed. Life got better but somehow more people than ever are sick with "being unable to cope with modern life". What nonsense.

 

[Invisible Woman]

During the Q&A TG justified her blocking of people on Twitter. It seems to be anyone who dares to disagree with her, or even support someone else she disagrees with. I guess that's why she blocked me, as I have never said anything at all to her publicly.

Blocking people simply because they disagree while at the same time bemoaning the spread of "distorted facts" are stances that are not compatible with each other.

If a person wants the truth to be known and not distorted and believe their grasp of the "facts" to be correct then engaging with people who disagree might clear up any misunderstanding not only with the individual but also others on the social media platform. Of course, only the truly arrogant believe they can never be wrong & there's always the possibility they might learn a thing or two themselves.

No. Proclaiming herself to be a defender while only wishes to engage with those who share the same opinion simply demonstrates TG believes that only her opinions and those who share them matter to her.

 

[Trish]

Social media behaviour is an interesting situation when people are participating on subjects which bear directly on their paid employment.

I wonder whether employers and professional organisations people belong to have any expectations that, for example, a doctor will act according to their codes of conduct, or whether they are free to act however they please.

Is blocking people putting different points of view to their own on scientific or medical subjects regarded as acceptable behaviour among professional colleagues?

In other words are they tweeting as representatives of their professional organisations/employers, or do they have freedom to behave in ways that would be unacceptable at work?

 

[chrisb]

Perhaps that is a question of whether people are accountable for their opinions or their behaviour, and the extent to which is is presumed that their opinions guide their behaviour.

 

[Invisible Woman]

In other words are they tweeting as representatives of their professional organisations/employers, or do they have freedom to behave in ways that would be unacceptable at work?

The easiest way to be clear about that is have separate private and professional accounts.

Some organisations might still start disciplinary proceedings against a person if they publicly say something in their personal accounts that reflects badly on their employer. Especially if they have a link from their private to their professional accounts.

I don't know about the public sector but the private sector will usually have something in the employee terms and conditions.

 

[Mithriel]

I don't think it is the behaviour of people that has changed, it is the type of person who is pushing false information.

Released documents from the CIA show that in the 60s/70s they developed policies to pay people in the media to be available to place the news they wanted with the slant they wanted. They also developed guidelines for deflecting things they did not want accepted. It shocked me to realise that the BPS people were following the same steps with ME patients.

Politicians have always been careful of the facts they release, but nowadays they feel free to say whatever they want because when they are shown to have lied enough people have believed them to achieve what they want. We see this in the ME world too. The PACE trial is thoroughly debunked but is still being acclaimed in the media.

 

[Kitty]

Is blocking people putting different points of view to their own on scientific or medical subjects regarded as acceptable behaviour among professional colleagues?

They say that high-level academic debate between peers can be skilful, polite, and brutal. I suppose the trouble with Twitter is that any bugger can challenge your ideas with the same skill, politeness, and brutality, and that's really not on.

"They don't like it up 'em, Mr Mainwaring!"