Snake-Oil Society

I want to take this opportunity to express my deepest concern and respect for the admirable and courageous people of Japan. I trust that we will help them to the best of our ability .

.   .   .   .   .   .

“It’s true that Americans believe a lot of nonsense,” my friend says. “But you’re not going to change anyone’s mind; and besides, most of the crap people believe is harmless, isn’t it? So why let it bother you?”

Not having time for an extended discussion, I let it go with an evasive reply along the lines of how, as a lifelong student and sometime practitioner of psychology, I have always been interested in the dark side of human nature. At best that was only a partial answer to a deceptively complex question that continues to haunt me. So here I’ll try to exorcise it with a serious and detailed answer.

First of all, he’s quite right to say that believing minds are not going to be changed – not by reasoned arguments, and not by facts. In a recent series of studies, researchers presented people with solid evidence that refuted their mistaken beliefs. The result: exposure to the disconfirming facts actually strengthened their commitment to their beliefs! Be sure to read this, and then chalk up another Pyrrhic victory for human nature.

Those studies and other evidence suggest there is a strong human tendency to protect beliefs, to reject or rationalize unwelcome arguments and facts that would otherwise be persuasive. This is the direct opposite of evidence-based critical thinking, which clearly does not come naturally but requires training and discipline. But where outside of a few departments in universities are students going to receive such training?

(Here’s a radical idea: Why not begin teaching critical thinking in elementary school? It could be justified as part of a much-needed course in science and scientific method. Other than reading and basic math, is there anything more important in today’s world than an appreciation of what science is, how it works, and how it affects every facet of our lives? But I digress.)

As for the kindly notion that most false beliefs are harmless, they’re not – not for the people holding them, not for society as a whole. My friend seemed to be implying that time spent worrying about widespread false beliefs would be better spent thinking about personal concerns closer to home. Kind of reminds me of the cliche, “God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change.”

Well, serenity certainly has it’s place – it’s good to be reminded when you’re obsessing about things you can’t control at the expense of things you can; but like so much ancient and contemporary “wisdom,” that simplistic saying only sounds like the last word on the subject. In a democratic society, concern about a wide range of issues is necessary and healthy. Except for this crucial caveat: Citizens must be receptive to reason and factual evidence. Otherwise, concern can easily be exploited and transformed into misguided ideology (Tea Party, anyone?). Jefferson famously said, “Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government.” He might equally well have put it this way: Whenever the people are misinformed, they cannot be trusted with their own government. Sometimes I look around and get the impression that misinformation, and disinformation, have never been more prevalent.

So I am both intrigued by and deeply concerned about rampant false beliefs and their widespread consequences for individuals and the social fabric. That’s why I frequently discuss and write about this issue, as do many others who belong to a growing modern skeptical movement based on reason and science. We are all doing our part in various ways to try to understand, combat, and raise consciousness about the pernicious effects of widely held irrational beliefs. If weird beliefs and belief systems were isolated and limited, then they might be mostly harmless, as my friend suggested. But that is not the case: the body politic is infected with a spreading and dangerous contagion of irrationality. Nothing less than that.

There are three major institutions infected with bizarre nonsense that I would like to discuss in this and future columns – religion, politics, and medicine. The first two are obviously intertwined in a coordinated, symbiotic relationship that has far-reaching and very disturbing consequences. All three areas demand the most serious, concerted, and urgent action.

In this column I’ll deal with religion. Here we’re looking at about 40 percent of the U.S. population who are certain that the earth – no, make that the entire cosmos – was created in six days a mere four- to ten-thousand years ago. Just consider the magnitude of that error! The universe has been proven to be nearly 14 billion years old and the earth has been circling the sun for some 4.5 billion years. But that poses no problem for the fundagelical mind: You see, their god not only created Adam and Eve as adults, he also created the universe and the earth with “the appearance of age.” As for the fossils, he organized them in their respective strata to make us mere mortals think that the earth is many orders of magnitude older than it really is. Why would he do that? They dunno, and they don’t care – the Bible says so, and that’s all they need. Besides, it’s sinful to question God’s inscrutable reasons. And all will soon be revealed according to The Plan. By the way, another wacko fundamentalist interpretation of the fossils is that they were deposited in the strata during the great flood. That’s right, while the ark cruised along on the surface carrying all the animals, the flood sorted out the unlucky ones in conformity to evolutionary theory.

And we’re supposed to respect religion.

Yeah, whatever. As stupid as all this sounds, it’s a real and menacing nightmare right here in the heart of “the most advanced, most powerful nation on earth.” These deluded morons are deadly serious; they own the Republican Party; and they’re busy rewriting U.S history textbooks to support their contention that the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation. They use Thomas Jefferson’s “endowed by their creator” phrase in the Declaration of Independence as evidence of the founders’ theocratic intentions. Talk about deceit – Thomas Jefferson was the greatest and most vocal advocate for separation of church and state!

And wherever right-wing revisionists have power (Hello, Texas!) they are also busy revising science curricula to conform to their provably false dogmas. Historical and scientific facts are mere annoyances to the twisted minds of ideologues, who have no qualms about the virtue of lying for Jesus. But mostly they really and truly believe all this ludicrous nonsense, often with such fervor that they would be willing to die for it. They positively long for the rapture, which their Holy Scripture assures them is imminent. Then they will be transported to that blissful place where they won’t have to deal with all those abominable homosexuals, abortionists, atheists, and immoral liberals. All those miscreants are destined to burn in hell anyway, along with the gazillions of people down through the ages who did not accept the fundies' version of Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

Meanwhile, Americans are electing these people to public offices at all levels, from school boards to Congress. Consider Representative John Shimkus (R - IL), who wanted to be chairman of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee. Speaking before a House Energy Subcommittee in 2009, Rep. Shimkus quoted the Book of Genesis to support the Republican position that there is no need for climate legislation:

I believe that is the infallible word of God, and that's the way it is going to be for his creation. The earth will end only when God declares its time to be over. Man will not destroy this earth. This earth will not be destroyed by a flood.

More real-world consequences are easy to find. A recent survey of high school biology teachers showed how effective the religious right’s disinformation and intimidation tactics have been: only 28 percent teach evolution according to standards, while 13 percent are avowed creationists. The remaining “cautious 60 percent” wish to avoid controversy and neither endorse evolution nor unscientific creationist alternatives.

This deserves to be put in perspective. Evolution stands as one of the most robust of all scientific theories. Over a time span of 150 years, there have been countless observations that might have falsified evolutionary theory. Yet in all that time there has not been a single discovery that is inconsistent with the theory. No fossil rabbits in the precambrian rocks, no contradictory molecular evidence, nothing. Every piece of data confirms the reality – the fact – of evolution. It is in fact one of the great triumphs of scientific method, and it is simply perverse to deny it. Yet in the United States the religious-right denialists have persuaded the majority of citizens that evolution is “just a theory” that doesn’t adequately explain the diversity of life on earth. Only in America.

The political right is waging the same kind of concerted disinformation warfare against climate-change science, with comparable success and even higher stakes. More on that coming soon.

And so it goes with the right wing’s relentless religious and political war against science/reality – deny, demean, deceive. Bully and intimidate. They really have no choice if they want their agenda to prevail, because reality is biased against them. Unfortunately, they use those tactics very effectively as part of their orchestrated, media-driven culture war. The “vast, right-wing conspiracy” is alive and well.

Next time more incredible nonsense and a few suggestions for how the reality-based community can begin to fight back. (Hint: Some semblance of leadership would help.)

If it’s not too late.

Truth Is a Casualty of Our Culture

I had so much fun writing about myself last time that I’m going to risk it once more. This time the pretext is to provide some background for future columns. So here’s my take on nothing less than truth. Which, by the way, has been a major casualty of the escalating cultural and political warfare in this increasingly bizarre country of ours. . . .

To the best of my self-knowledge, truth is my highest value, even when it is painful. And because truth (which I define as verifiable evidence) is so obviously essential for survival and progress, it offends me when people abuse it, bend it, or embellish it. I’m speaking as a dedicated, lifelong naturalist, rationalist, and scientific skeptic who values reason and evidence as the only reliable tools for discovering and understanding the nature of reality at all levels. In other words, scientific method. The same kind of thinking applies at a practical level: I see no reliable way to solve problems or make viable progress unless we start with and build upon accurate and reliable evidence in every situation and proceed systematically in the spirit of science. To me that is basic: it is essentially what a doctor, auto mechanic, or just about any competent expert routinely does. Based on the evidence I’m aware of (quite a bit, really), I can’t see value or promise in anything that departs very far from that prescription. I’m talking about beliefs and related practices that can in fairness be labeled paranormal, supernatural, or pseudoscientific. A few examples: revelation, divination, energy medicine (here and here), prayer and faith healing. Quite simply, I have never seen persuasive, supporting evidence for any of those belief systems or practices. Such questionable evidence as is brought forward in their behalf always breaks down under close scrutiny or the weight of better, more rigorous evidence.

Some readers will surely take that as evidence that I am close-minded, which I categorically and resentfully deny. I’m not a fanatic – that’s for ideologues and dogmatists – and I do recognize the necessity of being open-minded in tandem with my skepticism. I count myself as a member of the modern skeptical movement, which opposes close-minded rejection of claims while also holding that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” That certainly seems reasonable, don’t you think? I am not a reflexive naysayer or debunker, and I’m willing to consider reasonable evidence for a wide variety of fantastic claims and beliefs. In fact, I have taken a keen interest in pseudoscientific, paranormal, and religious topics for more than 30 years. That said, anyone who has been reading my columns is aware that I strongly reject, and even ridicule, many claims. Ridicule, as Thomas Jefferson said, has it place and certainly can be justified in many cases that have been around for a long time and have repeatedly been shown to be wrong. But thanks to an intractable epidemic of immature wishful thinking combined with incompetent, irresponsible media reporting and programming, the public just doesn’t get it. Skeptics remain a small minority. Maybe I should have channeled the spirit of one of America’s true geniuses, H.L. Mencken, and titled this column Minority Report (and do check out the link – you’ll thank me). 

I also give short shrift to claims that violate scientific laws. How about the unsinkable rubber duck known as perpetual motion? Can anyone offer even one good reason why it should not be scornfully dismissed? Show me even one example over the centuries where such a claim has held up. For your entertainment, here is another ludicrous example – that “holy man” in India who claims not to have eaten food or drunk liquid for 70 years. According to some mainstream press reports (stupid Fox News, again) he was “tested” under rigorous conditions. Obviously that cannot be the whole story, and it doesn’t bother me in the least to summarily declare that it’s a crock. I just keep finding more reasons to be contemptuous of mainstream news media and still more reasons to be embarrassed by the species I’m a member of. If any right-wing morons out there think that sounds snobbish, I am proud to plead guilty.

Anyway, skepticism is a complex topic in its own right that I’ll cover in more detail later. For now I’ll just take a commonsense position and say that I try to be skeptical the way a good scientist is. In general, the credence I’m willing to give to a claim is proportional to the supporting evidence. And the more extraordinary the claim, the more doubtful I am and the more and stronger evidence I require. So while I’m determined not to get taken in by bunk, I’m always ready to change my mind on the basis of convincing evidence. Naturally, some claims rightly require a lot more “convincing” to get past my baloney detector.

Although I hold factual truth as my highest value, I am not interested in beating individuals or groups over the head with “the truth” when it might be hurtful. (Well, there are exceptions.) For sure I am not opposed to the white lie to protect someone’s feelings. And I am not opposed to being very cautious about publicizing findings that could cause further disadvantage to the already disadvantaged. I try to remain aware that what I regard as truth is best viewed the way science treats facts and theories – not as proven, but provisional. Stephen J. Gould put it quite well:

In science “fact” can only mean confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent.

By that criterion there are a great many right-wing “perverts” out there concocting all kinds of ridiculous, convoluted arguments to deny any science that conflicts with their simplistic, anachronistic belief systems. The religious right is particularly gifted in that regard with their creationism and intelligent design fantasies. Can you think of anything more blatantly stupid than Noah’s Ark? I can: that infantile fable is about to be celebrated in the form of a tax-subsidized Noah’s Ark theme park in Kentucky with the blessing of the Republican governor of that great sovereign state. I’ll be curious to learn what Senator Rand Paul has to say about it.

Whether ideologues (who, almost by definition, oversimplify reality) like it or not, there is no escaping the fact that the reality gradually being revealed by science is highly complex and very difficult to understand. There are and always will be huge gaps in our knowledge, and we are surely destined for many surprises, pleasant and unpleasant. Whether the dogmatists and ideologues like it or not, there is and never will be any simple, overarching explanation: facts and the theoretical frameworks that tie them together are provisional and always subject to revision on the basis of new evidence. And ethics are, of necessity, situational – again whether the ideologues like it or not. Reality as revealed by science is amazing; and it is surely not a marionette controlled by a cosmic puppeteer, not even one with a long, white beard. Reality is all-too real; and it’s tougher than ever to study and understand now that we’ve already picked most of the low-hanging fruit. Fruit that the religious right rejects. I guess they learned their lesson with that first “tree of knowledge.”

Difficult as science may be, every scientific and professional field is based upon a core of well-established, replicated facts and evidence-based methods – truths, if you will – that it would be perverse to deny. Competent and ethical experts in those fields never claim knowledge or expertise they don’t have; and if they encounter situations where they feel they need to use speculative methods, they say so up front. It’s called transparency (a fancy term for honesty), which should be – make that must be – fundamental not only to good science but to mutually respectful relationships among competent adults.

Would that it were. Instead, on a daily basis I experience a culture that increasingly thrives on disinformation and hype in just about all areas. As soon as I get away from my handful of trusted print and Internet sources, it’s like I’ve entered a reality distortion field of spurious claims. Just turn on the TV and flip to a random channel. You won’t have to wait very long to see someone making unsupported claims or telling outright lies. Everything and everyone with a public presence is managed by PR experts, spin-meisters whose main purpose is to present a contrived, favorable image to a gullible public. Truth has nothing to do with it except as an annoying impediment easily circumvented. If you can afford it. This phenomenon reaches a crescendo during election seasons, which have now been extended to the point where they are seemingly perpetual. Is it my imagination or do all those formulaic campaign ads use the same droning voice reading minor variations of the same negative script? It’s amazing that we, the great American public, have become so indifferent to and so accepting of blatant deception. And the lies and deceptions continue unabated for one major reason – they work! And they work for a number of reasons, primarily because far too many Americans are too easily manipulated. Meanwhile, no one dares to utter a word about regulation or accountability for lying to the public.

Returning to science and expertise, I don’t mean to oversimplify the messy nature of the very human enterprise known as science, which, for all its imperfections and growing pains, is our only tool for understanding reality. Science’s great virtue is that its core methods are sound, and it eventually gets things right. I readily concede that more often than not we must act with less than full understanding, often in circumstances that are fraught with uncertainty. When we’re fortunate, we may have recourse to tested (evidence-based) strategies for optimizing our risk- or cost-benefit prospects. Of course there are always the slick, persuasive charlatans and sincerely ignorant, misguided ideologues ready to step forward with plausible-sounding, oversimplified solutions to almost any complex problem. Just look at all the alt-med cranks that I wrote about two columns back. Like politicians, they are very good at exploiting the myriad foibles of human nature.

As I think about the deteriorating political and cultural landscape in this country, I can only conclude that Republicans are the masters of effective propaganda. How else can you explain their recovery just two years after the debacle of the Bush administration? Here’s how: They see themselves as an army engaged in a life-and-death culture war, and their primary weapon is a massive, well-orchestrated propaganda network. They are far more coordinated than the fractious left, and they all reinforce the same memes. Getting caught lying never seems to shame them, hurt them, or mitigate the damage they inflict on the other side. Hillary Clinton got it just right with the phrase, “vast, right-wing conspiracy.” Now of course they’re after mild-mannered Obama and anyone who stands in their way, using the same old despicable and effective Swift-Boat tactics.

So there I go, complaining again; and I admit that’s the easy part. Much harder is to propose workable solutions. So in my next column I’m going to offer at least three steps we could take to begin reversing the intellectual and ethical deterioration of our culture. Be warned: these are ideology-free, evenhanded, practical proposals, which certainly means they would be savagely opposed by Republicans.

Ideology corrupts; ideology wedded to power corrupts absolutely.

Begging Your Indulgence . . .

. . . While I indulge in a bit of possibly relevant personal history.

I started writing a column here in September 2008, near the ignominious end of the criminal enterprise known as the Bush administration. Back in those now-forgotten days, TPJmagazine was still “The Political Junkies,” and I adopted the pen name, “Reluctant Junkie.” I chose that nom de plume because politics was not something I had ever wanted to obsess over. I simply was not a political junkie at heart, and over many years I rarely paid more than average attention to politics. Then the “Unitary Executive” and his henchmen took over the government and began systematically deceiving the nation and undermining the foundations of our constitutional democracy.

Now don’t scoff: I always knew full well that politicians lie more than, say, bus drivers, schoolteachers, or members of most other professions. It’s just that the inherent dishonesty of high-level politics had never grabbed my attention with such urgent, gut-wrenching force. Day after day I read or watched the news with jaw-dropping astonishment and rising anger as official and unofficial right-wing liars spewed out the most brazen disinformation. I remember on several occasions calling to my wife, “You’ve got to hear what they’re saying now – you won’t believe it!” And after 9-11, the administration’s treacherous propaganda machine, abetted by a timid and complicit mainstream media, ramped up to a truly spectacular level as our neocon rulers made their false case for invading Iraq, and George Bush got the war he craved to build his political capital. From there things continued to deteriorate, and for probably the first time I felt personally threatened by my own government. I’m not saying I shouldn’t have felt that way earlier, only that the threat signal never broke through all the noise with enough force to distract me from my preoccupations.

And I sure resented the hell out of feeling that way about my government. Call me an idealist, but I hold the quaint view that our Federal Government should uphold the highest standards of honorable and ethical conduct in all areas. (And in truth many government agencies seem to do pretty well, considering the uncertainties and constraints they work under.) Yet here was this purportedly elected administration operating in secrecy and running the people’s government in the style of an organized crime cartel. By the end they had run up an unconscionable debt, destroyed the economy, alienated most of the world, passed some abominable legislation, and made a travesty of a number of federal agencies. In the latter case, they appointed inexperienced political hacks to run federal agencies and obstruct the regulatory apparatus wherever it conflicted with the goals of their various constituencies. Essentially, Bushco politicized everything they could get their bloody hands on, turned the government into a spoils system to advance their political goals. I haven’t researched this, but I remember reading that even if the Democrats manage to stay in power for another election cycle or two, they will not be able to dislodge those career right-wing apparatchiks that Bush appointed.

At this point a moderate might say I’m overstating the case, coming down too hard on an administration that just had a different political philosophy. To any such suggestion I would reply, “Overstating, hell! If anything, I’m being far too generous.” For eight years I paid close attention to what those bastards were up to, and I can give you chapter and verse on many of their crimes and scandals. But as this is only an overview, I’ll refer you to Google: try entering “Bush administration crimes/scandals” and spend an hour or so refreshing your memory, as I did. And maybe you’ll come to the same conclusion, that Bush and his cronies should all be vigorously investigated, charged as appropriate, and arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced. They did nothing less than run our government like a criminal enterprise, and they should be held accountable to the full extent of the law.

Of course I know that nothing close to that is going to happen. But when the Democrats won in 2008, I hoped that maybe the wheels of justice might begin to grind, however slow; instead, under a president who only wants to ”look forward,” the wheels have ground to a halt. It galls me that Democrats are so intimidated by the rabid right in this country that they won’t even investigate obvious crimes.

Anyway, the dozen columns I wrote as a reluctant political junkie were personally rewarding and also somewhat therapeutic, providing me with a modest opportunity to feel like I was fighting back against the outrages emanating from the right. I can’t recall ever writing with such passion. But then real life intervened and I had to suspend the column for personal reasons. A year later TPJ agreed to take me back; so here I am again, this time with a new pen name – Science Junkie – that reflects a new focus on science, particularly as it relates to human nature rather than the discouraging topic of U.S. politics. Of course, given the right’s belligerent and well-financed opposition to any science that conflicts with their goals, politics is inescapable and will rear its head to some extent in almost every column. But my primary emphasis will be on my first love, science and related issues, not partisan politics, which never was my forte.

During my year-long absence from TPJmagazine, the Obama administration has repeatedly disappointed its progressive supporters on several fronts. Speaking for myself, I have been especially incredulous regarding Obama’s unjustified efforts to promote the fantasy of bipartisan cooperation. Who besides Obama thinks this is possible? The very idea that reasonable, pragmatic people can work with the power-hungry “Party of No” or the incoherent Tea Party is absurd, utterly pointless. Considering the nature of fanatical right-wing extremists, their express and implicit goals, and their recent, barely disguised endorsements of violence, the only rational course of action for those in the reality-based community is to do everything possible to keep power out of their hands. Which is main reason I support Democrats these days rather than joining the call for a progressive third party. I wouldn’t feel that way if we were talking about a situation closer to normal politics; but victory at this time for Republicans and their Tea Party comrades could very well mean the reversal of all the progressive gains of the past seventy years. These new conservatives are even more radical than Bush’s cohorts and could make us yearn for the calm rationality of the Bush-Cheney administration. Their success would be nothing short of a disaster – for us and quite possibly most of the world. Hence, my very practical, lesser-of-evils, reluctant but necessary support for the Democrats.

That’s why, as much as I respect Ralph Nader, I could not vote for him or any progressive third-party candidate at this time. I agree with Mr. Nader that elected Democrats are almost indistinguishable from Republicans in many ways, and we can no longer count on them to protect and defend the rights and interests of the vast majority of working people and the disadvantaged – but at least they offer a fighting chance. If we follow Mr. Nader’s advice and vote our conscience, as he recently recommended, we’ll be throwing the next election to regressive fanatics who very likely have no intention of ever relinquishing power. So I would remind him that if he thinks the previous administration posed a threat to our democratic institutions, this generation of reckless ideologues will turn that threat into a living nightmare.

So on that happy note I take leave of writing about partisan politics to focus on the fascinating world of science, especially as it impacts crucial human issues now confronting us. I am especially excited about discussing findings in relatively new fields like cognitive neuroscience that now have much to contribute to our understanding of human nature (for want of a better term). I would like to report on recent findings that might help to explain, for example, why people cling to patently false beliefs and ideologies that defy reality. Or how large numbers of otherwise intelligent people can be so easily manipulated by quacks, charlatans, and demagogues. I contend that the new sciences of the mind may be yielding some truly useful findings – not speculative theories but genuine facts that could force us to reconsider all the old assumptions about our “true nature.”  

Deluded Ideologues and a Frivolous Media: A Deadly Combination

In the interest of fairness and balance, and before I get negative and nasty, here are a couple of genuine media achievements to cheer about. Just don’t get carried away: any notion that mainstream media are dedicated to presenting the truth would be naive. With that caveat, I propose three hearty cheers for the British Medical Journal and award-winning journalist Brian Deer for his meticulously documented report about a major scientific fraud that led to a significant public health problem. To quote the Journal’s sharply worded introduction:

In the first part of a special BMJ series, Brian Deer exposes the bogus data behind claims that launched a worldwide scare over measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine, and reveals how the appearance of a link with autism was manufactured at a London medical school.

Also, a somewhat restrained Hip Hip Hooray for ABC's Anderson Cooper, who conducted a scathing interview with Andrew Wakefield, the disgraced British researcher Deer caught in the headlights of his first-rate investigative journalism. The contemptible Wakefield moved to Texas in 2001 and subsequently became a hero in the weird world of the U.S. anti-vaccination movement. He has been embroiled in problems stemming from his infamous 1998 MMR-autism study since at least 2004. Last May his medical license was revoked for “serious professional misconduct” related to that study. Predictably, Wakefield and his supporters claim he is the victim of a conspiracy by the vaccine makers and their allies in the medical establishment.

I am hesitant to praise Anderson Cooper, mainly because of the shoddy medium he works in, with its history of cynical pandering to popular myths and misconceptions. But I'll make an exception in this case while remaining keenly aware that corporate TV news coverage is not going to improve (e.g., by valuing facts and well-reasoned analysis), at least not in my lifetime.

My disdain for mainstream media, especially for its chronically inept science coverage, is shared by many in the scientific community. Dr. David Gorski, writing at the Science-Based Medicine blog site about Wakefield's ethical problems, referred to the mainstream news media as “useful idiots.” Generally, prominent charlatans and sincere but deluded ideologues like the anti-vaxers have little to fear from popular network “news” and “documentary” programs or even from the mainstream press. More often, they can count on “fair and balanced” network TV to directly or indirectly promote their unproven medical, paranormal, political, and religious claims.

I offer The Oprah Winfrey Show as exhibit number one. Oprah has consistently been one of the prime media culprits, irresponsibly providing an uncontested national platform for all kinds of pseudoscience, quackery, New Age mysticism, and woo. Two of her star guests were the irresponsible anti-vax celebrity spokespersons, actress/whatever Jenny McCarthy and her former boyfriend, the noted scholar, Jim Carey. Amazing, and shocking, that a couple of deluded actors can persuade millions of people to doubt or reject the scientific consensus on a simple, affordable procedure that saves on the order of 9 million lives a year and could save almost twice that number if all children were immunized. What these prominent anti-vaxers are doing is nothing less than a life-and-death proposition for some victims of their misinformation campaign. Just check out this web page at Oprah.com for a sample of the quality of McCarthy’s evidence and reasoning. You have to be impressed by her “warrior spirit” persona and her emotional appeals, like this one:

What number will it take for people just to start listening to what the mothers of children who have seen autism have been saying for years, which is, “We vaccinated our baby and something happened.” 

Something happened. Wow, that’s great, Jenny, I guess correlation is causation after all. Thanks for the enlightenment. I was sort of under the impression that autistic symptoms often are noticed around the time children receive their first vaccinations, but from now on I’ll get my information from mothers. I know there are skeptics who say your son is not autistic, that he most likely had a different condition with similar symptoms to autism. But who are they to question the assertions of an indigo mom of a crystal child whose autism was cured by chelation therapy? Or of a mother who wrote the foreword to Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s latest book? I guess I was too busy reading all that sciencey stuff to pay proper attention to you and Oprah.

Okay, enough of that, except that it’s pretty typical of what the U.S. has come to in terms of the kinds of messages that influence people. Oprah, with her millions of adoring viewers, is but one prominent culprit – the liberal Huffington Post also provides a national platform for McCarthy, Carey, and their ilk. As the estimable Brit Dr. Ben Goldacre points out at his Bad Science blog,

. . . the media have systematically and irresponsibly misrepresented the evidence on MMR. . . . MMR vaccine uptake has dropped from 93% to around 75%, and to below 50% in London. Furthermore, the media have shown no sign of recognizing and acknowledging their role, and so it seems likely that they will go on to cause further harm on this but also, more importantly, on many other issues.

So that's what's been going on, in Britain and in the U.S., and it will likely persist as long as a gullible public continues to uncritically swallow an endless variety of ignorant, manufactured, and misleading claims made by celebrities and interest groups distinguished mainly by their lack of knowledge and appropriate credentials. All the while the purveyors of misinformation continue to become more sophisticated and effective in persuading the public to reject scientific findings (e.g., evolution and climate change). I attribute this lamentable state of affairs in part to the failure of our educational system to teach anything remotely approximating critical thinking or an appreciation of scientific method.

Call me a cynic if you want, but it's basic: corporations and interest groups are not going to spend millions to sponsor accurate and honest programming that challenges viewers’ biases and interests. They and the networks want nothing as much as high ratings, and truth is often an annoyance and a casualty. Yes, it is almost that simple: If most viewers believe in spooks – and they do – then you don't debunk spooks or other popular paranormal or pseudoscientific beliefs, certainly not in prime time. The monied class has appropriated the medium and the message to its own advantage – no surprise there.

Are the broadcasters and sponsors really that cynical? I say yes, absolutely, certainly, without any doubt – that is who they are and what they do. Deception in news and so-called documentary programming is so pervasive that the public has become desensitized and indifferent, so that when nut jobs like Sarah Palin start shrieking about “death panels,” there is little or no outrage, no proportional response. Basically, they just get away with it. For another thing, lots of citizens want to believe deliberate claptrap – there’s a huge market for reasons to hate Obama, liberals, gays, etc., and it matters not to that market if the information is true or false. The torrent of dangerous misinformation is now so overwhelming that those who might be moved to express their outrage don't even know where to start. So when someone tells me to temper my anger and be more loyal to the country – and it has happened – my immediate inclination is to ask, “Loyal to what?” But that’s another topic for another column.

A few conclusions:

Vaccination stands as one of the great triumphs of medical science. The current vaccination schedules are safe, and opposition to them is irrational and harmful.

If the eminently sensible, science-validated precaution of getting one’s children vaccinated can be undermined in just a few years by well-funded groups of mostly sincere but misguided ideologues, what hope is there that this country will get back on a rational course?

Journalists in mainstream news media have largely abdicated their responsibilities and sold out to the infotainment demands of their corporate employers, who expect them to pander to or manipulate a gullible public. Instead of aggressively investigating and exposing deceptive practices, today’s crop of journalists downplay or ignore those practices. Honest, investigative reporting is increasingly relegated to dedicated bloggers such as Drs. Goldacre and Gorski who work from ethical conviction rather than for money. But then almost all the best information and analysis I read these days comes from people who do it for free, out of a sense of ethics and public service rather than for monetary gain.

Ideologies are often faith-based, unsupported by sound evidence and reason; and committed ideologues are extremely resistant to facts and rational arguments, much like religious fanatics, maybe worse.

A major reason for public acceptance of dangerous nonsense is the failure of the education system to teach a basic understanding of and respect for the methods of scientific inquiry and critical thinking.

We in the reality-based community must take the initiative in an aggressive and organized fashion and form what amounts to an army of truth squads. Scientists, educators, journalists – everyone who respects science and reason – should get involved to the best of their ability, as some few already have. We must start speaking out consistently and forcefully to counter the toxic messages of deluded ideologues and corrupt media. Responses to falsehoods should be timely, widely disseminated, and sustained. And consistent: Even if the deceivers are on our side, any public figure or organization that deliberately misleads the public should be ruthlessly exposed – named, shamed, and shunned (audio interview). What is true must take its rightful place as our foundation value.

In my previous column I proposed that ideological commitment stems from human nature. It once served us well during our evolutionary era, but no longer. Ideologies now collectively pose the greatest threat to peace, prosperity, and survival. People in advanced nations must get serious about transcending many of homo sapiens’ natural inclinations if we’re going to safely navigate the treacherous currents of the 21st Century.