If the science is correct we should be dead from acid rain, being sunk under the sea, ozone being destroyed, oil should have ran out decades ago, and yet I think for some of the scientists studying these things at the time, the data was convincing, it really showed that these things would happen,
Yes, this is a big topic over the past few years, they usually blame social media for this misinformation, but it was the elites / technocrats who ( probably knowingly )created this social media / internet for reasons unknown and set it up in this way to create division and conflict between people.
If you watched the video you know about the shady studies done by tobacco industry before the cover up was revealed, all that misdirection was a part of the official narrative about the safety of smoking witch the official agencies were basing their guidelines on. You can never be sure about something if your just blindly follow what the official narrative is, because the studies these official organizations follow could be flawed and have conflict of interest.WHO, the FDA, or the European Medicines Agency as sources of information of drug efficacy and safety.
People seem to believe anti-scientific misinformation that disseminated on YouTube videos and amplified across the internet these days instead of following science-based evidence or looking groups like the WHO, the FDA, or the European Medicines Agency as sources of information of drug efficacy and safety.
It's already happening, or rather, has happened. And it's terrifying.Eventually, oligarchs will be able to influence public opinion and consensus not only via the press but also via social media. I think this is a worrying trend. You can't filter information and expect people to become more educated by it.
It's pointless to show 'them' all the facts, when 'they' can't differentiate between a logical syllogism and a bald-faced lie. When there's no critical faculty, there's no point to truth and transparency.You need to show them all the facts at the same time and expect that they can make their own judgment of what is true or false. Transparency is key.
And we're back to critical thinking ....There are people who watch YouTube videos and who believe every word without second-guessing and without verification.
Oh look !!!! We're back to it again ...There are also people who read the newspaper and believe every word without second-guessing
I agree and that's another problem. As long as 'news' is monetized, the incentive to reinvent it into something that will draw more eyeballs is inescapable, and what draws more eyeballs is never the truth, which seems to be like Kryptonite to almost 50% of the population here in the US ....It was just the misinterpretation of science that implied these things. Science itself normally is very cautious with such claims, but the media has to sell, and hyperboles help in this matter.
When there's no critical faculty, there's no point to truth and transparency.
It boils down to the concerted dumbing down of the electorate, starting in pre-school and accelerating from there.
Not so much ..... at least not over here, and not bery often. Parents like to see their offspring bring home A's, and their donations to the University are tied to that expectation, so the University accommodates that need.Only in universities, this is when they begin to teach you to think on your own and critically.
following science-based evidence or looking groups like the WHO, the FDA, or the European Medicines Agency as sources of information of drug efficacy and safety.
Both things are sides of the same medal. Without critical faculty, there is no critical thinking. Without transparency, a critical faculty can not evolve.