So, I try to be on the lookout for my triggers that are said to contribute to the spread of misinformation [†]. So, when I find 2 seemingly good arguments with conflicting reasoning and conclusions, it's an opportunity to test my bias. The first one attributes the spread of misinfo to scientific illiteracy. The 2nd one to behavioral inertia.
Why Are Lies More Attractive than Science? https://bylinetimes.com/2020/03/30/the-coronavirus-crisis-why-are-lies-more-attractive-than-science/ Fake news in the time of coronavirus: how big is the threat? https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/30/fake-news-coronavirus-false-information I'm not as skeptical as Dave about scientific [il]literacy. I believe there are good-faith scientists (and popularizers) who are working on a real problem (e.g. psych resistance to understanding exponential growth). But I disagree with the 1st article's conclusion. I don't think that's the most important factor. This is mostly, I think, because I doubt my competence in everything, from hanging a picture to reading papers on spin glasses. But it's bolstered by my friends', who have no understanding of science, *very* persnickety behavior with regard to wherever their attention lands. They're picky in what they believe, from which shoegazer electronic band is best to which type of patchouli oil works best on skin vs. in the diffuser. So, the rhetoric in the 2nd article seems more right, to me. It's less about understanding the "science" and more about entrained behavior. [†] E.g. here: https://theconversation.com/10-ways-to-spot-online-misinformation-132246 -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
