The problem is that people don’t trust their institutions anymore, and with good reason. When 1200 scientists sign a letter claiming “white supremacy” is a threat justifying public protest at a time when other public protests are banned because of covid — as happened last year — then people are perfectly justified in believing science has been institutionally captured and politicised. It took scientists 200 years to build their credibility with the public. The left has burned it to the ground in two.
To be fair, the media have had a big hand in this and not just on a political basis. Today every published scientific paper is considered by non-scientists, who write an article full of ‘mays’ and ‘mights’ and ‘coulds’ and people don’t read it properly – maybe they only see the headline.
Then a conversation occurs in the kitchen or front room, “They say that….”
As Chris points out – most of those are not real scientists but social scientists masquerading as proper scientists.
Drahcir Nevarc
2 years ago
“But the discourse of the hoax has not faded. Instead, it has become more widespread, corrosive and destructive.” You should not damn all hoaxes in this manner. Many hoaxes are perpetrated with the explicit intention of shining a light on duplicity and ignorance. For example, we should be thankful to the perpetrators of the Sokal/Bricmont hoax of the 1990’s, and more recently the Grievance Studies hoax, for exposing the folly, cynicism, and intellectual vacuity of postmodernism and woke fascism.
Stephen Portlock
2 years ago
Isn’t part of the problem the deeply dangerous notion that science and indeed fat-based knowledge is a product of ‘white colonialism’?
I’ve upvoted your comment on the assumption you meant ‘fact-based’. :o)
Edward De Beukelaer
2 years ago
I think one needs to be more careful with approaching this subject. There are of course hoaxes that are plain obvious but in the end, everything we judge is based on interpretation and the kind of narrative we prefer. Ok, you can come up with hard facts etc to proof certain things and agree with a large part of the population about it, but if another part of the population prefers to believe something else, they are entitled to it, however stupid you (we, other people) may well judge that point.
However much we would like it, nothing is ever black or white: things are always shades of grey. The simple fact is that we cannot impossibly grasp all the information available around us to create the perfect narrative we live in. Every narrative is always a trade off relating to what suits us for the purpose we want to use it for…. The truth????? no everythying is a narrative, there are only truths by convention and in relation to set parameters. Of course setting the parameters will make it possible to ‘identify’ hoaxes. I think i’d be more interested in reading the analysis of origin/significance/circumstance related to ‘hoaxes’: hence the beginning of the article was interesting.
Saul D
2 years ago
Today we learnt from the Durham indictment that political activists and their lawyers can be found actively creating these type of hoaxes as part of manufactured smears for political ends.
I’d also like to see Aaron Maté’s (journalist at TheGreyZone) views on OPCW as it’s an area he’s investigated more deeply than most, alongside the Steele Dossier/Russiagate – another deep political hoax.
Chris Wheatley
2 years ago
There are quite a few hoaxes about, especially on the Internet.
How about the ads on TV which ask you to sponsor a snow leopard? Isn’t that a form of hoax?
Lloyd Byler
2 years ago
The media who lie, used to be hung on street posts.. they were called prophets, and the punishment back then for predicting an event that was not/did not come true was death on public display, that is how harmful a lie is.
Today, these same self-aggrandizing pompous blowhards wear a tie and receive a salary for lying.
The BBC (I know, I know) Intrigue podcasts ‘ mayday’ episodes are a very interesting background and investigation into the White Helmets from many viewpoints including the gullible academic McKeigue mentioned above and people directly involved on the ground – powerful stuff
RT is monitored by Ofcom so it cannot broadcast fake news. I watch it from time to time to get a different point of view on emotive subjects..
Nicholas Taylor
2 years ago
Referring to the points made by (Dr?) Edward de Beukelaer, anyone is entitled to believe whatever they like to the extent that it does not affect anyone or anything else. I, curiously, believe there is such a thing as truth, based on the observation that the world is internally consistent, and any judgment or narrative has to relate to something concrete. So, there are not truths BY convention, but truths AND conventions, the critical factor being how they relate to each other. If someone denies that the Moon landing happened, it’s unlikely to affect anyone, but if I refuse a vaccination it may put someone else at risk, and if I believe the person approaching me in the street is really an alien lizard in disguise whom I must destroy to save the world … What allows life to exist amid the impossibility of perfect information is long enough time to resolve uncertainties, and small enough reach in space to limit the spread of effects. We seem to have circumvented both those defences.
The problem is that people don’t trust their institutions anymore, and with good reason. When 1200 scientists sign a letter claiming “white supremacy” is a threat justifying public protest at a time when other public protests are banned because of covid — as happened last year — then people are perfectly justified in believing science has been institutionally captured and politicised. It took scientists 200 years to build their credibility with the public. The left has burned it to the ground in two.
To be fair, the media have had a big hand in this and not just on a political basis. Today every published scientific paper is considered by non-scientists, who write an article full of ‘mays’ and ‘mights’ and ‘coulds’ and people don’t read it properly – maybe they only see the headline.
Then a conversation occurs in the kitchen or front room, “They say that….”
As Chris points out – most of those are not real scientists but social scientists masquerading as proper scientists.
“But the discourse of the hoax has not faded. Instead, it has become more widespread, corrosive and destructive.”
You should not damn all hoaxes in this manner. Many hoaxes are perpetrated with the explicit intention of shining a light on duplicity and ignorance. For example, we should be thankful to the perpetrators of the Sokal/Bricmont hoax of the 1990’s, and more recently the Grievance Studies hoax, for exposing the folly, cynicism, and intellectual vacuity of postmodernism and woke fascism.
Isn’t part of the problem the deeply dangerous notion that science and indeed fat-based knowledge is a product of ‘white colonialism’?
I’ve upvoted your comment on the assumption you meant ‘fact-based’. :o)
I think one needs to be more careful with approaching this subject. There are of course hoaxes that are plain obvious but in the end, everything we judge is based on interpretation and the kind of narrative we prefer. Ok, you can come up with hard facts etc to proof certain things and agree with a large part of the population about it, but if another part of the population prefers to believe something else, they are entitled to it, however stupid you (we, other people) may well judge that point.
However much we would like it, nothing is ever black or white: things are always shades of grey. The simple fact is that we cannot impossibly grasp all the information available around us to create the perfect narrative we live in. Every narrative is always a trade off relating to what suits us for the purpose we want to use it for…. The truth????? no everythying is a narrative, there are only truths by convention and in relation to set parameters. Of course setting the parameters will make it possible to ‘identify’ hoaxes. I think i’d be more interested in reading the analysis of origin/significance/circumstance related to ‘hoaxes’: hence the beginning of the article was interesting.
Today we learnt from the Durham indictment that political activists and their lawyers can be found actively creating these type of hoaxes as part of manufactured smears for political ends.
I’d also like to see Aaron Maté’s (journalist at TheGreyZone) views on OPCW as it’s an area he’s investigated more deeply than most, alongside the Steele Dossier/Russiagate – another deep political hoax.
There are quite a few hoaxes about, especially on the Internet.
How about the ads on TV which ask you to sponsor a snow leopard? Isn’t that a form of hoax?
The media who lie, used to be hung on street posts.. they were called prophets, and the punishment back then for predicting an event that was not/did not come true was death on public display, that is how harmful a lie is.
Today, these same self-aggrandizing pompous blowhards wear a tie and receive a salary for lying.
And some go by the name of politicians.
The BBC (I know, I know) Intrigue podcasts ‘ mayday’ episodes are a very interesting background and investigation into the White Helmets from many viewpoints including the gullible academic McKeigue mentioned above and people directly involved on the ground – powerful stuff
RT is monitored by Ofcom so it cannot broadcast fake news. I watch it from time to time to get a different point of view on emotive subjects..
Referring to the points made by (Dr?) Edward de Beukelaer, anyone is entitled to believe whatever they like to the extent that it does not affect anyone or anything else. I, curiously, believe there is such a thing as truth, based on the observation that the world is internally consistent, and any judgment or narrative has to relate to something concrete. So, there are not truths BY convention, but truths AND conventions, the critical factor being how they relate to each other. If someone denies that the Moon landing happened, it’s unlikely to affect anyone, but if I refuse a vaccination it may put someone else at risk, and if I believe the person approaching me in the street is really an alien lizard in disguise whom I must destroy to save the world … What allows life to exist amid the impossibility of perfect information is long enough time to resolve uncertainties, and small enough reach in space to limit the spread of effects. We seem to have circumvented both those defences.
They’ll not believe you….
Ask Professor Luttwak