Semester 4 Sneak Peek 👀

Hey, y'all, it's CT and Zakiyah, And we know, we know, we said we weren't coming back until November eleventh, but we can't wait that long, so we had to share just a little sneak peak with y'all. In our first Lab of semester Foor, we're talking to doctor Gail Sinatra and doctor Barbara Hoefert about their new book, Science Denial, Why Happens and What to Do about It. Their book explores what keeps folks from having a broad understanding of science.

You don't see people who are very doubting and resisting science, hesitating to use an iPhone or get on a plane. They're not denying physics, they're not denying the technology that goes into Wi Fi. So it is this phenomena of selective denial, which really is driven by your motivations, your emotions. So you're picking and choosing what you like about science and what you don't like, and science doesn't.

Work that way.

That's such a good point, you know, science does not care about your feelings. It's not about our opinions or what we want to be true.

It's about what the evidence suggests is our best understanding of the science at the time.

Yes, it's so important to remember that science is backed up by research and evidence. For example, with masking and vaccine, scientists are doing studies to see how effective those measures are and then creating guidelines accordingly. And yes, these guidelines can change as the evidence changes, as we learn more. But we'll talk a little bit more about that later. But I think we should start with the history of science denial. Tt let's rewind a little bit. Have we

The history of science probably starts with science denial, doubt and resistance.

We try to trace it back to Galli Lao and you think about how he was under house arrests for the beliefs that he had, how long it took for people to accept his theories. Think about Darwin. It took more than one hundred years for scientists to accept fully what he was proposing in the way of evolution.

So, for real, it feels like science denial has been going on since the beginning of science itself, and in the last fifty years it's become more pervasive as there's been some outside meddling, so corporations realizing that fostering some science denial could help their bottom line. It all goes back to the money.

Beginning with the tobacco industry, for example, were interested in trying to deflect the idea that somehow it was cancer causing, and they hired pr firms to so doubt. And the same companies are being used by Exxon and other corporations to make it look as though climate change isn't a certain fact.

In fact, even as recently as twenty ten, Philip Morris has routinely argued that Marlboro gold cigarettes actually decrease the risk of cancer. That's wild, but that brings us to today. With a global pandemic in a steadily warming planet, it feels like people are holding their noses up as scientific evidence left and right. So this has made me ask is there an increase in size and denial.

I think the difference that we see is the amplification of misinformation through social media, and that's coupled with us living in our information bubbles where we get the same information and if it's misinformation, that's same misinformation reinforced over and over again and it becomes more credible. There's the joke that misinformation travels around the world before the truth gets up and puts its pants on. Misinformation is really compelling.

We've talked about algorithms on social media before. What goes viral isn't always true. It really helps us understand why it's so important to talk about science denial right now. So when you think about that amplification and what we know about the brain, and the more you see something, the more is reinforced and you begin to believe it. I think all that makes sense in the current context. Sometimes people who are science deniers go overboard and say