Editorial

Information is Power
by John J. Vester

In today’s world, the idea that information is power hardly needs explaining. In the right hands, data makes it possible to do great things. In the wrong hands, however, it can be weaponized to disrupt elections, distort the truth and, via the computer, wreck lives.

As in anything, information (therefore power) can be used for good or ill. Its application says more about the user than about the tool. And, of course, what is presented as information often has little to do with facts or the truth.

What about social media and conspiracy theories? The former exist as a mighty megaphone for the craziness in our collective consciousness, and so the believers proliferate and grow stronger.

How did we get to the point where facts are doubted and fantasies believed? What is the solution? Can we ever agree on what’s happening? Can we really know the whole truth?

In a word, no. Modern life is too complex. No one can possibly know firsthand what’s really true anymore. No one can build his or her worldview based purely on personal experience. But the compulsion to know the “truth” is strong.

We can construct a reasonable picture of the world using indirect, secondhand reports from trusted sources, fragmentary and untested though the information often may be. Still, this has given us incredible power to enrich our lives and control our environment.

Who we trust, and how we trust (through critical thinking, or unquestioning belief) are important considerations. How we build our worlds should be of concern to all of us, especially after, for example, the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol. The clash of differing personal realities had been building for a long time. It boiled over on that day and, unchecked, such clashes threaten to tear us apart. As Voltaire said, “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” The solution is not China’s surveillance society, but rather some soul-searching about our radically divergent worldviews . . . our conflicting Truths.

All conspiracy theories (except, of course, your own) are trips into fantasyland. What’s the attraction of these departures from reality? One, in my opinion, is that the specific bit of fiction one believes seems, to the true believer, to be “information” which confers power. Let’s face it, no one said that it’s only true, factual information that is power. Frighteningly, having a lot of people believe what you’re putting forth, true or not, is power—imaginary for the individual but real for the instigators. There is power in numbers, after all, and that power accrues to the person wielding those numbers.

So, without doing the hard work of weighing the evidence, a person can attain a measure of intellectual power, as well as the power of being a member of a large, like-minded group. And one gets there simply by throwing in with those who believe the Earth is flat, or that we never landed on the Moon, or whatever less innocuous convictions are out there.

In a society so dependent on science and technology, having a rising number of citizens in thrall to make-believe is dangerous for the cohesiveness of that society. Anti-science sentiments are on the rise, to our peril.

We’ve entered into a realm where, to some of us, evidence no longer matters. If the news conflicts with what one believes, then the media is biased. Once a “reality” is built, anything that disputes it must be ignored, rejected, or explained away by further departures from what those outside that “world” think they know. An adversarial relationship exists, in the minds of conspiracy theorists, between the Truth and the “deep state,” a belief that is a basic ingredient in today’s distorted takes on the life and the politics of the country.

It’s easy enough to point out the flaws in someone else’s view of things. Yet, to do so is an exercise in futility. Once a conspiracy-theory-based worldview takes hold, it’s almost impossible to abandon. How else is it possible that Flat Earthers, Moon Hoaxers, and Climate Deniers continue to believe what they do? It’s easy to fool someone, but almost impossible to convince that person that he or she has been fooled. Converts into cults are common. Converts out again are rare, and often only after intervention or trauma. The (to you) deluded conspiracy theorist will ignore anything you, the (to him) uninformed member of the ignoratti, has to say. He will actually tighten his grip on his viewpoint, taking your efforts as proof that there must be truth in what he believes, or else why would you be trying so hard to dissuade him?

It’s a much harder, but potentially more rewarding activity, to work with conspiracy theorists to help them reevaluate their theories, and maybe even your own (the scientific method, after all). To help, many books have been and are being written on this subject. Among them is Think Again: The Power of Knowing What You Don’t Know, by Adam Grant. In an accessible style, the author examines the various faces of irrationality and how to combat them. In a telling cartoon reproduced in the book, the problem is shown graphically. A path splits. One way, with very few hikers on it, is marked “Answers: Hard but Probably Right.” The other path, very crowded, is marked “Answers: Easy, but Probably Wrong.”

A large contributing factor in the durability of conspiracy theories is our worship of celebrities. The celebration of these people confers an unquestioning, almost religious faith in them and what they have to say.

Another noteworthy book, Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk, by Massimo Pigliucci, is a more cerebral examination of its subject. Pigliucci spends a considerable number of pages on the question of expertise. Experts provide a shortcut for the uncritical mind into acceptance of whatever the “expert” is selling.

Choosing which experts to believe takes no small amount of cautious evaluation. Just saying that you’re a scientist does not automatically make you an expert. “Scientists” come in all varieties. Do you have a PhD? In a relevant field? From what college or university? What is your track record? Do you have any unscientific motivations for speaking out? Are you on the same page as the majority of your colleagues? Giving the “right” answer to these questions does not guarantee that you are qualified to weigh in, but it’s a good indicator. Getting the “wrong” answers means, at the very least, that the average citizen should have his “baloney indicator” on and set to full sensitivity.

The motivation of people making pronouncements that collide with your sense of reality or established scientific views, seems, to this observer, to be one of the root causes of the conspiracy plague. The book Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Climate Change, by Naomi Oreskes and Eric M. Conroy, exposes the cynical motives behind the efforts to sow doubt on smoking’s role in cancer and heart disease, the effects of acid rain, the existence of the hole in the ozone layer or climate change, and other debates.

This handful of scientists are giving easy answers (provably wrong), and possibly dangerous, like “Go ahead and smoke,” “Don’t worry about climate change,” “Don’t get vaccinated,” etc. In virtually every case, the promoters and spokespersons for such toxic and false views are the people who stand to gain if they are perceived to be right, but, more importantly, right or not, they benefit from the monetary and/or political power gains to be made if enough people simply buy the lies.

This is especially true in the political arena. Whether true or fabricated, claims that an election was stolen, in spite of the absence of evidence, can only benefit the loser. And so the claim is made. Whether sincerely or dishonestly it doesn’t appear to matter. The masses, unaware they are being manipulated, follow along obediently.

“Who benefits?” and other filters are important when faced with major questions like evolution vs. intelligent design, or life and death issues like vaccinations or global warming.

A possible source of confusion, contributing to the belief in conspiracy theories, is an error in logic that affects the workings of the average mind. Called the fallacy of composition or hasty generalization, it’s thinking that what little one can see is the whole picture. If you have a belief supported only by your imagination, you will latch onto the slightest snippet of information that appears to confirm your belief and you’ll embrace it as proof that the whole theory is correct. This is not a sign of evil intent; it’s just how the mind works. But social institutions and norms, such as education, the law, the press, etc., exist to rein in such thinking and prevent it from spiraling out of control.

It seems the controls have gone away or become insufficient today. How could we have arrived at this sorry state? Why are so many of us addicted to “realities” that are questionable? I have no solution to offer for this growing trend. I only know that we need more humility and to concede occasionally that we may be wrong about some things. I think it’s worth a try.

When faced with people whose view of the world, or opinion on some issue, makes your skin crawl, don’t simply refute their points. Author Grant suggests instead that you ask questions, show interest, and thereby mute their self-preservation response so the conversation does not quickly reach an impasse. Then you may be able to ask a question, like “How exactly would that work?” or “What kind of evidence would make you revise your thinking on this?” enticing the theorist to entertain a more evidence-based outlook. This might make the (to you) conspiracy theorists question their premises, or maybe they will ask you something to make you question yours.

Regardless of how it goes, conversing is better than dismissal and retreat into our own corners or silos. It’s important to keep in mind that Flat Earthers, or other adherents to ideas you may find ludicrous, are, for the most part, otherwise good people motivated by the same priorities of survival, family, and safety that move you.

So why not invite them to take the path less traveled with you?

Copyright © 2024 John J. Vester