Mark Hoofnagle has a MD and PhD in physiology from the University of Virginia, and is now a general surgery resident. His interest in denialism concerns the use of denialist tactics to confuse public understanding of scientific knowledge.
One of the hot topics around here lately is authority and anonymity. It's a terribly difficult philosophical question----how can you ever trust a source of information that is second hand? And yet ultimately we all are forced to do it most of the time.
A potent weapon in the denialist arsenal is the fake expert. The profusion of these charlatans makes identifying trustworthy sources even more important. We have many ways of doing this. We often use our intuition, a powerful but notoriously dicey skill. Sometimes we go by word-of-mouth. Sometimes, we go to established sources of authority, such as the CDC or the Mayo Clinic. Is ScienceBlogs a trustworthy source?
Absolutely! and Not at all!
One factor in our favor is the high percentage of real experts who blog under their own names and have verifiable credentials. Another is the fact that most writers here cite primary and secondary sources with links, so that you can follow up on the evidence yourself. Finally, Sciencebloggers often disagree with each other. You will rarely see cranks and fake experts allowing for dissent. Take, for instance, uber-cranks like Joe Mercola and Gary Null. They run "medical" websites. But the information they give out is very thinly veiled propaganda. When you follow their citations to their source, you rarely find credible sources, such as well-known medical journals. Instead, you find unpublished papers by other quacks, or quote-mined statements from reputable journals. Most of the blogs here, even when we're not at our best, give links and citations that any energetic reader can follow and verify, and the comment sections are open to allow for our own vilification. You'll rarely if ever see fake experts allowing a lot of unmoderated comments on their websites.
In looking to see if authorities are trustworthy or not, look for some of these signs---a willingness to be questioned, real citations, substantive information that doesn't read like some college kid made it up after a night of hard partying. Read, but read with intelligence. And chances are, if someone wants to sell you something that sounds too good to be true, well...
Medicine & Health
Comments
Why should I worry about anonymity? The past eight years should be evidence enough that a real name and an age-old masthead mean almost nothing when it comes to competence, honesty, and reliability. Verifiable evidence and citation, peer review and opinion, and most importantly - the critical eye of the reader - are the best defense against woo, bunk, and propaganda.
Posted by: Bob | April 22, 2008 2:15 AM
"A potent weapon in the denialist arsenal is the fake expert. The profusion of these charlatans makes identifying trustworthy sources even more important"
LOL, you can say that again.
On something completely different, at least your blog has been spreading some information about RSV to the general public.
even if much of that information's value is more than a little dubious....
Posted by: jnovitz | April 22, 2008 6:09 AM
It's a terribly difficult philosophical question----how can you ever trust a source of information that is second hand?
It's only a difficult philosophical question if you're a demented fucking wackaloon who's obsessed with your own "credentials" and those of others, and unwilling to just judge people on the merits of what they say.
Posted by: PhysioProf | April 22, 2008 6:50 AM
What you describe in the last paragraph are critical thinking practices. The 'fake expert' is a potent weapon because people generally are prone to accepting anything, especially if it conforms to their world view. Critical thinking can be learned, and should be a core subject in one's education, right along side reading, writing, etc.
Posted by: lukkystarr
| April 22, 2008 10:10 AM
PP, when i try the "trust me I'm a doctor" line on the spouse, I get a classic PP response from her...no smoke an mirrors gonna work there...
Posted by: PalMD
| April 22, 2008 10:57 AM
Unfortunately, critical thinking skills don't get more than lip service in public or private schools. Parents don't really want their children to think critically. When students think critically, they start asking all sorts of annoying questions...
"Is there really a Santa?"
"Is there really a god?"
"Why do people believe that crap?"
So critical thinking just gets teachers into trouble. Everyone wants students to learn critical thinking, until it's their ox being gored.
Before the libertarians and anti-government types get started, private schools are worse than public schools in this area. Private schools always have an agenda that they would rather not have their students think too hard about.
Posted by: LanceR | April 22, 2008 11:48 AM
I recently wrote an email to the author of vaccinationdebate.com about how there is a lack of said debate on that site. I have yet to hear a response from him. Is this a typical response?
Posted by: Anonymous | April 22, 2008 3:43 PM
Do I trust this site specifically and sb in general. In general I do and this quote says it all, "One factor in our favor is the high percentage of real experts who blog under their own names and have verifiable credentials. Another is the fact that most writers here cite primary and secondary sources with links, so that you can follow up on the evidence yourself. Finally, Sciencebloggers often disagree with each other."
Posting here is a lawyer, which in most case I do have sufficient background to at least smell if something doesn't seem right, and two biology types that would have to say something pretty outrageous for me to have a clue it was wrong. But, reading the comments, I realize that there are others reading the blog who could spot nuanced errors in legal theory and still others who could pick apart a poorly constructed argument on a medical issue.
I don't consider my trust in this site as an acceptance of answers from authority, but trust that the free exchange of ideas between experts tends produce verifiable results. I mean after all, if scholarly journals teach us anything at all, they teach us that those who study their field intensely, love to poke others who intensely study the same field right in the eye. And that is empirically a beautiful thing.
Posted by: mtully | April 22, 2008 7:44 PM