Is YouTube Responsible For Creating Flat-Earth Believers?

[Greg Bernhardt]

The solution to poor scientific literacy is more science engagement, not less! You don't solve flat-earth and anti-vax by taking down bad youtube videos, you do it by increasing the number of good sources of information.

And teaching critical thinking. The problem is the public's attraction and digestion of poor or bait click science. One problem is that doubt and skepticism leads in adoption of bad science. Doses of doubt and skepticism is unfortunately uncomfortable for most people so it's easy to satisfy them with bad science instead of continuing to investigate and think critically. One's own pride also inhibits going back on their skepticism to the original conclusion. For example if someone has doubts about gravity, they are attracted by an alternative view that supports their doubt. Even if it's not completely satisfying it's better to digest internally than to go back to mainstream gravity, because they would internally admit defeat and render the skepticism a waste of time. So they dig themselves deeper.

 

[lpetrich]

I think that we have to look at what seems persuasive to many people. Fancy rhetoric and flashy videos may do much more than words on a page. So one will have to try to beat the flat-earthers at their own game, by making lots of diagrams and animations and videos. That should be an interesting exercise, and one might be able to convince some undergraduate to make a short video about how we discovered that our homeworld is approximately spherical.

As to science education being mostly rote, that has been criticized for a *long* time:

Escaping the rhetoric of “the past” in science education | Boundary Vision noting such criticisms over the decades
Old school science education | The Scientific Teacher noting Thomas Henry Huxley on science education:
On the Educational Value of the Natural History Sciences (1854)
Scientific Education: Notes of an After-Dinner Speech (1869)

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

So one will have to try to beat the flat-earthers at their own game, by making lots of diagrams and animations and videos.

The problem is that bad science is shame-less when it comes to deceptive marketing, but good science has to be very careful with marketing because good science is always evolving. The laymen public will always defer to easy sources.

 

[BillTre]

The problem is that bad science is shame-less when it comes to deceptive marketing, but good science has to be very careful with marketing because good science is always evolving. The laymen public will always defer to easy sources.

This is true, but that does not mean that good science can not be presented in an engaging and intellectually sound manner.
It is just more difficult and requires working more to achieve it and "Trying Harder".
I personally am interested in the combining sound science with explanatory graphics and (perhaps) videos to make more interesting explanations.

Any source can be easily accessible physically (such as by putting it on youtube).
Easily understandable requires making the underlying concepts accessible at some level to those with a lower level of scientific literacy. Good visuals can helpful with this.

 

[lpetrich]

True, one has to be careful. I confess that I cringe when I see schematics repeated too often without noting that they are schematics and not an approximation of real appearance. Like atoms. Electrons don't travel in well-defined paths in them, but are more like standing waves over an atom's extent. So an atom look like a fuzzy ball. Likewise for nuclei -- they don't look like clusters of grapes but instead like fuzzy balls, though with much less fuzz than atoms. Likewise, hadrons look like fuzzy balls.

As to illustrating how we learned that the Earth was round, it should be easy to make some video to show some stars being visible at low latitudes but not at high latitudes, and also lunar eclipses. They always happen when the Moon is full, and that is when the Moon is in the opposite direction from the Sun. So the Moon is in just the position to fall into the Earth's shadow. Also note that the Earth has a circular shadow no matter when the eclipse happens. One can even make some cutesy video about a problem with round-earthism: wouldn't everything on the other side fall off? Also a more recent test of the Earth's shape: talking on the phone or text chatting with someone in some distant place. Daytime in one place will be nighttime in another place.

 

[mfb]

You don't solve flat-earth and anti-vax by taking down bad youtube videos, you do it by increasing the number of good sources of information.

Youtube has more videos than they could ever suggest you, and the number of suggestions they offer visibly won't change. Increasing the number of good videos in the suggestions is equivalent to reducing the number of bad video suggestions.

I was intently looking at the local time on the flight path display clock. In one blink it changed discontinuously from 3:14 pm to 10:14 am. I spent quite some time thinking about what it means for two people one mile apart across the line looking at the same sun and sky, one of them in the afternoon and one of them in the morning of the next day.

Your clock probably changed from the origin time zone to the destination time zone, both are not adjacent to the dateline.
The time zones adjacent to the dateline have +-2 hours relative to each other.

 

[BWV]

People tend to be overconfident in the conclusions they draw from a limited amount of information - this is documented often as the Dunning Kruger effect. A few good science courses in high school or college does not reduce this tendency. Numerous examples exist of even great scientists going astray when they believe their expertise in one area gives them a comparable expertise outside of their field - take Linus Pauling and vitamin C for example

Not saying that lay people should not be taught science, but they should also get more education on the philosophy and process of science.

 

[A.T.]

A researcher from Texas Tech University presented her findings at the recent AAAS Meeting, and found that most people started to believe in the Flat Earth idea after viewing YouTube videos!

As long you don't have to do any maths to make quantitative physical predictions (and most people don't), it doesn't really matter how you think about it. We choose the mathematically simplest description by Occam's Razor, but there is no need to get into arguments about beliefs.

 

[BillTre]

People tend to be overconfident in the conclusions they draw from a limited amount of information - this is documented often as the Dunning Kruger effect. A few good science courses in high school or college does not reduce this tendency. Numerous examples exist of even great scientists going astray when they believe their expertise in one area gives them a comparable expertise outside of their field - take Linus Pauling and vitamin C for example

People also tend to be overconfident in their own abilities (or perhaps that of their social group).
This can make my hesitancy to immediately jump into things seem more like a smart and careful re-examination of the situation before committing to an action!
(Overconfidence might be of selective value because it at least gets you doing something behaviorally (as opposed to being paralyzed in doubt).)

 

[russ_watters]

Youtube has more videos than they could ever suggest you, and the number of suggestions they offer visibly won't change. Increasing the number of good videos in the suggestions is equivalent to reducing the number of bad video suggestions.

It's not a math problem, it's a people problem. Censorship and 'shut up and do what I tell you' attitudes from doctors breed distrust and distaste. You don't fix disinformation with censorship, you fix it with better correct speech. Not to increase the signal to noise ratio, but to engage people. To draw them into positive and informative conversations.

In medicine, ordinary people and scientists have to interact, and making the interaction positive on an interpersonal and intellectual level is what breeds trust. People believe doctors - heck, or auto mechanics - who talk to them like they are real people who are capable of understanding the issues. When someone talks down to a person, they feel like the person may be trying to cheat them and the message becomes less believable.

For science, maintaining a tone of positive engagement is a critical part of PF's success and mission, it's a tough balance and its something we don't always get right - and even if we do it the best we can, it doesn't always succeed. Not everyone is reachable, but trying to set a positive and engaging tone is how you reach the most people.

 

[russ_watters]

And teaching critical thinking.

Agreed. Earlier in the thread others were talking more about the role of schools and I definitely think that science education is lacking, particularly when it comes to teaching how to think instead of just teaching facts. I think science is taught too much like history in too many cases - just as a collection of facts. For that matter, English classes need to ensure there isn't too much of story-telling and ensure they emphasize the critical thinking aspect. That can be tough to do because literature is a mixture of good stories and life lessons, so care needs to be taken to ensure the "lessons" part isn't glossed over. Especially when the story is really long for what is a fairly simple/concise message.

The problem is the public's attraction and digestion of poor or bait click science. One problem is that doubt and skepticism leads in adoption of bad science. Doses of doubt and skepticism is unfortunately uncomfortable for most people so it's easy to satisfy them with bad science instead of continuing to investigate and think critically. One's own pride also inhibits going back on their skepticism to the original conclusion. For example if someone has doubts about gravity, they are attracted by an alternative view that supports their doubt. Even if it's not completely satisfying it's better to digest internally than to go back to mainstream gravity, because they would internally admit defeat and render the skepticism a waste of time. So they dig themselves deeper.

Agreed as well, and this one is tough. I'm not sure if it is human nature or just a current cultural problem, but negativity gets more attention than positivity. It's how the news works, for example. Positive stories are boring and normal, so they don't need to be said. Negatives are abnormal, so we need to be informed about them. There's also (and maybe this is just an American thing), the "rebel" mindset where the lone-wolf who bucks the system is celebrated as a hero. People want to to be that guy. I think that (plus just that people don't like being told they are wrong) makes it easy to get on a bad path and hard to get off.

Clickbait science is a tough one for me. Besides being inherently shallow, I don't think it is inherently bad, it's just done poorly. And this is where I put a lot of blame on the media. It's fine to want to tell an interesting story, but journalistic ethics requires that they put an effort into be right, and all too often they skip that part. So the media gives breathless reports about perpetual motion machines and miracle diets and travel to Mars* and never bothers to do the little due diligence that can tell them it's probably a scam or worthless hype. Of course, if they did that, then they'd have to abandon the story, and that means more work finding a new one.

*Not sure if people heard, but Mars One went bankrupt. When the miracle Mars Mission fails, it gets a lot less press than when they announce they are going to go ("and buy our merchandise!").

 

[russ_watters]

In medicine, ordinary people and scientists have to interact, and making the interaction positive on an interpersonal and intellectual level is what breeds trust. People believe doctors - heck, or auto mechanics - who talk to them like they are real people who are capable of understanding the issues. When someone talks down to a person, they feel like the person may be trying to cheat them and the message becomes less believable.

By the way, I do sympathize with doctors on this. They are in a tough spot and strictly speaking their job isn't to be educators, it's to make sick people better. Worse, people come in all types and when people are sick or hurt even smart people can be emotional and dumb. So the "shut up and do what I tell you to" approach sometimes has to be taken. Their time is also valuable and limited, so they can't spend forever having a conversation on a tangential issue. But getting the best outcome requires having the patient and the doctor on the same page and working as a true team. So engagement as equals is necessary as a first approach.

And it's ok that it doesn't always work. It's ok to acknowledge that @Dr. Courtney's vaccine approach is (for the most part) the best approach even though it's not going to work for every doctor/patient. A comment was made earlier about efficacy; I'd bet most people are not aware of just how ineffective the flu vaccine is. That matters in the cost-benefit analysis, and it isn't anti-vax to say so. People who can handle imperfect realities should be encouraged to deal with them, not encouraged to ignore the issue in favor of a more convenient partial fiction.

We should not be so concerned with having a concise and unified message that we over-state the message. Overstating the message can fool some people, but most anti-vax/anti-science people are in fact intelligent*, and most of them you can't fool by over-stating the message. Then when they realize it, you just harden them further against what actually is true.

*The key mental trait of crackpots is not stupidity, it is mistrust of authority. That's why you can't fix it with facts, you must fix it with trust.

 

[anorlunda]

This is the OP premise.

A researcher from Texas Tech University presented her findings at the recent AAAS Meeting, and found that most people started to believe in the Flat Earth idea after viewing YouTube videos!

But I had to read all the way down to #62 before what I consider a major factor was mentioned.

I think that we have to look at what seems persuasive to many people. Fancy rhetoric and flashy videos may do much more than words on a page.

I'm thinking of my own grandchildren. Video is a much more attractive medium than prose. (Let me define text as something on the order of 144 characters, and prose as multi-sentence or horrors multi-paragraph. All prose is TLDR to many young people.) It is a weakness of PF that we deal mostly in prose and a strength of YouTube that they deal in video, likes and texts.

Young people also seek the approval of peers in the form of likes or texts. It matters not if their creation is true or false, but only liked or not. That's where the word meme comes in. So if you make a flat Earth meme and your peers like it; it is successful.

It is not just junk science, the youth invent junk politics, social stuff, and both loving and viscous but false gossip. Success is judged only by the likes and texts.

I could be describing Reddit's approach to science as compared to PF's approach, but YouTube does is even better than Reddit because video is so powerful.

I can't find a link because this goes all the way back to 2000 when The Internet was very much smaller. I read in 2000, that 80% of Americans had not read a book since High School. The trend continues, and not just in America. If we repeated that research among the under 25 crowd today, we might find that 80% had never read a paragraph since High School.

But many of the young outgrow it. Call them the 20%. Industry today manages to find an adequate supply of smart, educated, and hard working employees. So while we complain about the 80%, don't forget to the 20%. In the near future as automation eats more and more jobs; it may be optimal that all the productivity comes from that 20%. I think of Huxley's Brave New World.

 

[Drakkith]

What's the issue?

I think he is talking about the subject of the thread, not his opinion on the shape of the earth.

Yeah, that makes much more sense. My mistake.

 

[atyy]

And it's ok that it doesn't always work. It's ok to acknowledge that @Dr. Courtney's vaccine approach is (for the most part) the best approach even though it's not going to work for every doctor/patient. A comment was made earlier about efficacy; I'd bet most people are not aware of just how ineffective the flu vaccine is. That matters in the cost-benefit analysis, and it isn't anti-vax to say so. People who can handle imperfect realities should be encouraged to deal with them, not encouraged to ignore the issue in favor of a more convenient partial fiction.

This is misleading. First, the anti-vax issue is not about the flu vaccine. Second, where is this partial fiction about the flu vaccine being promoted?

The major issue is about the relationship between MMR and autism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaxxed

A related issue in other parts of the world (usually not referred to using the term "anti-vax") is the opposition to polio vaccination.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2727330/

 

[russ_watters]

This is misleading. First, the anti-vax issue is not about the flu vaccine.

I agree, but I didn't bring it up. The juxtaposition - or rather, lack of distinction - was made in the first mention of vaccines, in post #31, and the fact that they are two different issues was pointed out in the next post.

Second, where is this partial fiction about the flu vaccine being promoted?

I wouldn't necessarily say it's being promoted, but I would say people tend to gloss over the reality of the lack of effectiveness when promoting getting the vaccine. I don't have a source, it's just a perception. It would be great if there were a poll where people were asked how effective they thought the flu virus was, but I doubt such a poll exists. I did find this, though, suggesting the CDC is toning-down previous over-statements:

Nov 4, 2011 (CIDRAP News) – For many years, public health personnel have cited the estimate of 70% to 90% when talking about the level of protection afforded by seasonal influenza vaccines. But last week's meta-analysis of flu vaccine studies in The Lancet Infectious Diseases—along with several other studies in recent years—has raised the question of whether it's time to change the message about flu vaccines.

The meta-analysis produced little or no evidence of 70% to 90% efficacy for most population groups. The investigators used strict criteria to focus on the most reliable studies, selecting only those that used laboratory-confirmed or lab-excluded influenza as outcomes, among other stringent requirements.

The authors found that evidence from high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) indicates that flu vaccines have an efficacy of about 59% in adults younger than 65...

As it happens, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) actually changed some of its online education materials dealing with flu vaccine effectiveness less than 2 weeks before the Lancet ID report was published on Oct 25. [2011] (CDC officials were aware of the Lancet ID report in advance, as they had heard a preview of the research at the National Influenza Vaccine Summit Meeting in May.)

The changes in the online materials were carefully noted by the risk-communication consulting team of Peter Sandman and Jody Lanard. They took the occasion of the Lancet ID report's release to criticize the CDC over how long it took to change the online guidance and for making the changes without any public announcement.

A CDC online Q&A article for health professionals, updated Oct 12, says that RCTs conducted in 2009 and 2010 suggest that inactivated flu vaccines are 50% to 70% efficacious in adults younger than 65 when the influenza A strains in the vaccine and those in circulation are well matched. The statement does not mention the previously cited estimate of 70% to 90%.

http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2011/11/flu-vaccine-efficacy-time-revise-public-messages

However even that may be out of date. The current guidance on the CDC website says 40-60%:
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/keyfacts.htm

Even that seems on the high side though. The CDC website says over the past 17 years the overall average is only 41%. The 40-60% number is loaded with caveats, e.g., that it is less effective for older people:
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/vaccination/effectiveness-studies.htm

 

[OCR]

People who can handle imperfect realities should be encouraged to deal with them, not encouraged to ignore the issue in favor of a more convenient partial fiction.

Russ, am I reading that part right... the text I made bold ??

.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, am I reading that part right... the text I made bold ??
.

Yes...

I'll expand:
People who can handle the truth should be told the truth. But I recognize that not everyone is smart or logical enough to be able to deal with nuance, and for those people I think it is ok to gloss over the complexity for the sake of clarity.

 

[OCR]

... Mars One went bankrupt.

I didn't know that, but I know it now... and, thanks for making your post. . Mars One - Wikipedia

.

 

[DennisN]

Not sure if people heard, but Mars One went bankrupt.

Thanks for the update! I'm not surprised. At all. We had a discussion on PF a couple of years ago talking about the shady financials of the project. Mars One finally became what I thought it would become: Mars None.

 

[OCR]

Russ, am I reading that part right... the text I made bold ??

Yes...I'll expand:

Yeah, I thought that's what you meant... figured it out after some re-reading.

In fact, I came close to deleting the post.Just wanted to make sure, though... .

.

 

[OCR]

Mars One finally became what I thought it would become: Mars None.

. Thank God it wasn't that candy outfit, though. . Mars, Incorporated - Wikipedia

.

 

[hmmm27]

. Thank God it wasn't that candy outfit, though. . Mars, Incorporated - Wikipedia

.

Between Mars Bars and Big Turks it's a wonder I still have any teeth left.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

This is misleading. First, the anti-vax issue is not about the flu vaccine.

The anit-vax issue is not primarily about anyone specific vaccine, but rather about informed consent. Even the pro-vax doctor in this video states that all doctors are for (or at least they should be for) informed consent.



Unfortunately, the doctor I last visited with my son to update his vaccines for college was not really a fan of informed consent. My son had received every required vaccine on the schedule as a child, but either one more had been added, or one was in place in the state where he had been admitted to college. So when we got the notice that he could not schedule classes until he got that one missing vaccination, we made an appointment. Due to the time pressure, we made it with the first available physician rather than his regular doctor.

My wife, son, and I had reviewed both the required and recommended vaccines with some care prior to the appointment, giving consideration to all the recommended vaccines, reading the labels, weighing the costs and risks and benefits, etc. Our son's bottom line was he only wanted to get the single required vaccine at that time. But when we got to the doctor's office, the doctor really wanted to give additional (recommended) vaccines also. The doctor was not content with my reply that all we wanted was the one vaccine for which we scheduled the appointment, but that we'd take the suggestions under advisement, do some research, review the labels, see what our insurance covered, and schedule an appointment for additional vaccines if they seemed advisable. The doctor really applied the pressure to give our son additional vaccines before we left the office that day and did not favor additional research.

Similar experiences have been shared with me by friends and family - not extremist anti-vaxxers spouting the autism pseudoscience and saying no to any and all vaccines - but rather educated, informed, and diligent parents and patients who simply want time and opportunity for due diligence to offer informed consent on a case by case basis for proposed medical care.

 

[Rive]

...about informed consent.

I'm admittedly quite cynic and skeptic but my experience about the term 'informed consent' best case refers to something like 'I've had adequate amount of sermon and got convinced': worst case it is 'I've found enough link to support my preconception' (no offense intended). Based on my experiences with online communities I can totally understand anybody who just don't intend to spend his life with convincing every single people coming for professional care about the very basics of things he had to study hard to understand (quite like this forum, actually: being something like a refugee here... well, duh).

Two extremities: to ask for 'informed consent' at the intensive care, which rarely happens: ask for 'informed consent' at basic care, dozen times a day. Where lies the limits of the supposed trust, as the basis of daily life? Where the limit when it becomes illusory, or becomes something like ... bullying?

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Two extremities: to ask for 'informed consent' at the intensive care, which rarely happens: ask for 'informed consent' at basic care, dozen times a day. Where lies the limits of the supposed trust, as the basis of daily life? Where the limit when it becomes illusory, or becomes something like ... bullying?

I know it's a comic parody, but there are elements in the above video that are fairly common in the vaccination debate and that definitely tend toward bullying and pseudo-science. Examples:
1. The suggestion that all vaccines on the schedule today offer the same promise and benefits (relative to costs and risks) as the historical success of vaccines for smallpox and polio.
2. The lumping of all vaccinations together.
3. The berating of others for having a different opinion regarding their own medical care and the care of their children.
4. The suggestion that all vaccinations are important for herd immunity as they are currently used in the US.
5. The suggestion that all recommendations of doctors regarding medications are trustworthy and apply to all patients without due consideration of individual circumstances.
6. The suggestion that there is the same widespread agreement on all vaccinations among medical professionals that there is on a handful of childhood vaccinations (MMR, TDaP).

My view tends to be that among medical professionals, my insurance company is more trustworthy than many providers. My insurance company has done extensive cost-benefit analysis on each vaccine and loads of other preventative care options. They know pretty well whether the costs of not having a specific vaccine are likely to exceed the costs they pay for the large number of people they insure to get each vaccine. They are very willing to pay for those vaccinations. In contrast, they also know that some vaccines are kinda pricey and do not produce adequate protections and benefits relative to their risks and costs. If a vaccine is not covered, that's usually a hint to me that the benefits may not outweigh the costs and risks. Of course, individual susceptibility and exposure risks are also an important consideration. If traveling to certain places, I'd probably get a malaria vaccine even if I have to pay out of pocket. At the same time, even if my insurance company changes their policy and would pay for me to get an HPV vaccine, I doubt I would, since my exposure risk for HPV is exactly zero.

 

[Evo]

This thread has gone WAY off topic and is now closed.