Effective Science Activism and Three Thanks

We have published several recent articles arguing that to be persuasive in changing the minds of people who believe pseudoscientific claims and appealing misinformation, scientists and skeptics need some better tactics. In a way, Troy Campbell’s cover article, “Team Science,” is the culmination of this informal, continuing counseling course. Campbell, a social psychologist, is a professor of marketing (University of Oregon), and he brings not just a marketer’s understanding of persuasion to skeptics’ attention but that of a former “Imagineer” with Walt Disney as well. Who, after all, is more attuned to using all the tools of imagination and entertainment to draw us happily into their world than the creative people at Disney? Now, Disney’s studios and theme parks have a few more resources to bring to bear on their audiences than do scientific skeptics, but nevertheless some of what they have learned may be transferrable. Campbell, who spoke on this subject at CSICon 2018, offers a lot of practical advice. He agrees it’s unfair that scientists should have to do more than present “the facts,” but it is a fact that, to be effective in today’s world, they do. Also check out his handy sidebar, “Tips for Effective Activism.”

Conspiracy theories are everywhere. But how big a change is that? Joseph Uscinski, a political scientist (University of Miami) and a CSICon 2018 speaker, has been studying them for about a decade now. He and colleague Joseph M. Parent (University of Notre Dame) came up with a novel source of data to study the question: all 120,000 letters to the editor of The New York Times from 1890–2010. They looked for advocacy or refutation of a conspiracy theory and found, to great surprise, that they are not a new phenomenon: they seem to have existed during all eras studied. Conspiracy theories may be especially prevalent now in political discourse, but they have been a part of the American psyche for a long time. Uscinski’s article in this issue gives the details. Their book, American Conspiracy Theories, is quoted extensively in an article in the April 22 New Yorker by Elizabeth Kolbert.

Investigating a specific popular claim, or related group of them, probably is the prototypical type of SKEPTICAL INQUIRER article. But often our authors take a step back and examine a whole field and then present advice for how best to deal with it. That’s true of at least two contributions in this issue by our retinue of esteemed regular columnists. Joe Nickell starts with an unfortunate New Yorker article from March on premonitions that was notable for its lack of skepticism. He ends up providing nine specific guidelines for evaluating claimed premonitions, each with a small case study to illustrate. In her column, Harriet Hall gives a nuanced overview of alternative medicine and its flaws and then shows how naturopathy, homeopathy, chiropractic, acupuncture, and energy medicine all practice “science envy” in contending their treatments are backed by science, when, of course, they aren’t.