Interview with Naomi Oreskes

In this captivating interview, Naomi Oreskes, historian of science and professor at Harvard, insists on the urgency of understanding the mechanisms of disinformation at play in our society. The deliberate instillation of doubt by some industries poses a major obstacle to the essential collective actions such as the fight against global warming.

Interview

Sustainability Mag : Naomi, your academic career began as a historian
of science, but then you delved into a truly distinctive
research field, agnotology. Could you tell us more
about this research field?

Naomi Oreskes : Agnotology is the study of ignorance and how it is
socially constructed and perpetuated. My journey into
this field began during my research into the history
of oceanography. I stumbled upon scientists who
had been studying climate change since the 1950s,
uncovering a rich history of climate research that had
been mostly overlooked. What truly stroke me was
the wealth of scientific evidence supporting climate
change, far more substantial than what was portrayed
in early 2000s American media. This incongruity
between scientific knowledge and public perception
piqued my interest and led me deeper into the realm
of agnotology. I realised that understanding how
ignorance is manufactured and manipulated is just
as critical as advancing scientific discoveries.
In essence, I embarked on a journey to uncover the
roots of societal ignorance and its impact on crucial
issues like climate change.

That's a fascinating journey indeed. In your best-selling
book, "Merchants of Doubt" (2010), you've shed light
on how corporations manipulate science to foster
ignorance. Could you provide insight into how science
is wielded to cultivate ignorance in society ?

Certainly. "Merchants of Doubt" delves deep into
this troubling phenomenon, revealing various instances
where science has been misused or misrepresented to
sow the seeds of doubt. We explore pivotal moments
from the 1970s, '80s, and '90s when scientists were
forming a consensus on several critical issues.
For instance, they confirmed the health risks associated
with tobacco, the environmental harm caused by acid
rain, and the impending threat of global warming.
What is particularly intriguing is that those challenging
this scientific consensus were not typically scientists
within those respective fields. The four key people we
studied - the four original "merchants of doubt", were
Cold War physicists, but had little or no expertise in
climate science, atmospheric chemistry, or anything
to do with public health. In short, they were outside
the relevant expert scientific communities. And their
motivations were ideological, not scientific, which led
them to align initially with the tobacco industry, later
with libertarian groups advocating against government
intervention in the market. These individuals framed
government interventions as encroachments on
personal freedom, effectively stoking fears of sliding
into totalitarianism - a theme we delve into further in
our latest book "The Big Myth."

Our research in "Merchants of Doubt" primarily
focuses on two key aspects: the mechanisms employed
to cast doubt on science and the motivations driving
these actions. Essentially, our book explores the
"how" by illustrating various means, both legitimate
and illegitimate, used to sow doubt. Often, these
"merchants" exploited science's inherent uncertainties,
even though science thrives on acknowledging and
addressing uncertainty. They took an aspect of science
that should be a strength - its transparency in identifying
areas for further investigation - and twisted it into a
weakness, suggesting that if we don't know everything,
we know nothing. This strategy is insidious because it
exploits a kernel of truth to erode public trust in science.
Other tactics employed were far less honest, such as
presenting established scientific facts as unknown - like
attributing climate change to volcanic activity or suggesting
that cloud feedback would halt global warming - claims
that were repeatedly debunked.

Historically, how would you describe the trend towards
questioning established scientific findings?

Scepticism towards scientific discoveries is not a new
phenomenon and has a long history. It often arises when
scientific knowledge challenges deeply entrenched
political, religious, or personal beliefs. Historical
instances like Galileo's clash with the Catholic Church,
resistance to evolutionary theory, or the persecution
of geneticists in Soviet Russia exemplify this pattern.

What distinguishes today's scepticism is the context
in which it unfolds. In current democratic societies,
scientists increasingly face harassment and scepticism,
often politically motivated, and sometimes well-funded
by groups external to the scientific enterprise.
Social media amplifies the rapid spread of opinions,
sometimes lacking nuance and accuracy, further
complicating matters. For scientists, especially those
of my generation and older, being cast as adversaries
is a jarring experience.

This is particularly striking because democratic
societies have historically supported science.
Throughout the 20th century, American and European
governments, along with foundations, provided
substantial backing for scientific endeavors, fostering
prestige and support within the scientific community.
Hence, encountering harassment and scepticism
in democratic societies is unsettling, as it runs
counter to the historical alignment between science
and democracy, at least in the last century or two.
Sociologist Robert Merton argued that science and
democracy naturally align due to their shared values
of open inquiry, the free exchange of ideas, and a
willingness to question and criticise. That may have
been an oversimplification, but there was something
to it. In any case, many scientists grew up believing
it was so. The current wave of antagonism towards
science in democratic societies therefore feels different
and profoundly shocking to many scientists. Personal
experiences, such as receiving threats, provide a
deeper understanding of the challenges scientists
face today.

You mention the role of social networks in amplifying
doubts about science. How would you characterise this?

Social media didn't create the challenges we face with
science harassment and disinformation; these have
been around as long as humans have communicated.
However, social media has intensified these problems
in several ways.

The most obvious impact is the rapid spread of
disinformation. As we talk, industries like the gas sector
are flooding social media with climate change denial.
Social media makes it quicker and cheaper to spread
disinformation widely. Disinformation often spreads
faster than the truth because sensational claims grab
attention. The "merchants of doubt" don't need to prove
that climate change isn't happening; they just need to
sow enough doubt to discourage action. This strategy
appears simpler, as it creates confusion rather than
substantiating a point. It is remarkably easy to confuse
people, a phenomenon amplified by the internet and
social media.

Another critical aspect is the behavior of social media
companies themselves, which, in my view, have been
grossly irresponsible. They are aware of these issues
and have set up task forces, but their efforts have
clearly been insufficient. Some platforms seem to show
a deliberate disregard for the consequences of their
actions. For instance, during the COVID pandemic,
the Center for Countering Digital Hate found that
a substantial portion of vaccine disinformation could
be traced back to a dozen individuals or organisations.
Solving this problem should be relatively straightforward,
but in most cases, social media platforms have refused
to act decisively, likely due to financial interests.

How would you define truth in today's context?

Good question! If I had the answer, I would write
that book and then I would retire because, you know,
it is a question as profound as those posed by Aristotle
and the Bible. Obviously, we are not going to solve that
problem here today. Truth, in a pragmatic sense that
most scientists employ, is the pursuit of understanding
the natural world as it truly exists, not as we wish it to be.
Science revolves around collecting evidence, testing
theories, and building hypotheses that align with
this evidence and our observations of the world.

One way to test the accuracy of our scientific
knowledge is whether it empowers us to achieve
tangible results in the world. Drawing from American
pragmatist philosophers like Charles Sanders Peirce
and William James, we test truth in real-life situations.
If our scientific knowledge enables us to develop an
effective vaccine, it suggests that our understanding
has grasped an aspect of the natural world that is
sufficiently accurate to yield practical outcomes.
It may not be 100% accurate or complete, but it is
"true enough" to allow us to operate effectively.
This aligns with William James's idea of testing truth
in the making, validating it through real-world actions.
My views are more or less aligned with that idea.
If I were to deny gravity and jump from a fifth-floor
window, the consequences would likely confirm the
truth about gravity, regardless of my beliefs, and even
though we can argue about whether what I really
experienced was gravity or the bending of space-time.

How can agnotology help climate action?

When people recognise they have fallen victim to
disinformation, it often ignites a powerful emotional
response - anger. This anger can serve as a potent
motivator for change.

When individuals believe there is just a lot of confusion
surrounding critical issues, it can be disempowering.
They might think, "I'll wait until they figure it out"
and continue with their current habits, like consuming
hamburgers or driving gasoline-powered cars.
However, when you can unveil the deliberate nature
of disinformation and its source in vested interests
seeking to preserve their political and economic
dominance, it becomes profoundly empowering.
I have seen the impact of this revelation. People
attending my talks sometimes audibly gasp when
they realise the extent of the manipulation. It is
an exciting moment when you can visibly witness
people's understanding and motivation shift.

In your latest book “The Big Myth”, you argue
that the promotion of the free-market ideology
has hindered sensible policies addressing climate
change or social issues. Is this a “myth” that societies
based on the American model can escape?

Over the last four decades, a prevailing ideology
has favoured the deregulation of markets and the
reduction of protections for workers, consumers,
and the environment. Although this has led to
a certain amount of prosperity, it has prevented
a proper accounting of the real costs of economic
activities, such as climate change.
The challenge lies in dealing with these "external costs."
For example, when I buy gasoline, I pay for production
and profits but not for the climate damage caused by
burning it. These costs are now in the trillions annually,
recognised by institutions like the International
Monetary Fund.
The solution is well-known among economists:
internalise external costs with tools like a carbon
tax, requiring government intervention because only
governments can collect taxes. This highlights the core
issue - the prevailing ideology emphasising individual
responsibility and freedom has led to the belief that
we can individually solve these complex problems.
Yet, in the case of climate change, only governments
can implement some of the key solutions.
In Europe, you will find a greater willingness to engage
in this conversation. However, in the United States,
things get trickier, mainly due to the entrenched
anti-government ideology on the right.

How does disinformation impact the functioning
of democracy and hinder progress ?

In a democracy, having good information is paramount.
It is the bedrock on which we make choices. Imagine
thinking climate change is a hoax; you wouldn't
support a carbon tax, now would you? That is why
disinformation is so devastating. It clouds people's
judgment, and those who spread it know what they are
doing. Remember the tobacco industry? They knew
their product was deadly, but they concocted a web
of deceit, casting doubt on the science. They were
the pioneers of doubt-mongering. Now, think about
how that affected people's decisions. If folks thought
smoking was not so bad, they would keep lighting up,
and the industry knew that.
Disinformation doesn't stop at individuals; it can
warp entire societies. It corrodes the foundations
of democracy. When people don't have good
information, they can't make sound decisions, and
that is exactly why it is done. Democracy relies on
an informed electorate. Disinformation undermines
that fundamental principle.
So my friend, we need to keep a vigilent eye on the
disinformation game, especially in critical matters like
climate change. It is not a matter of misinformation;
it is about the calculated deception that harms our
democracy and hinders progress.

How do you envision tomorrow’s role of science
in society?

The role of science in society tomorrow, that is quite
the puzzle. You see, I have argued this before, and
I will say it again, we need not just natural science but
also social science. Many of these complex problems
we are grappling with, scientists - and when I say
scientists, I mean those in the natural sciences - often
mishandle them. They lack an understanding of the
social dimensions, the cultural and political forces at
play. Over my lifetime, I have seen scientists facing
resistance to their work and thinking, "Well, it's just
misinformation. We'll provide clearer information,
and all will be well." But when you are up against
disinformation, more facts won't cut it. You've got to
step back and examine the broader cultural landscape.

This is precisely why I'm a historian. Historical
legacies endure, shaping the way we think, even if
they happened centuries ago. They influence personal
and communal identities, as well as national identities.
Different cultures have their unique historical
narratives and identities. Italians, French, Germans
- they all have their distinct national identities.
Natural scientists often overlook these factors
because they are not trained to consider them
as causal elements. That is why we need a more
encompassing concept of science, akin to the
German notion of Wissenschaft, where knowledge
production encompasses cultural knowledge.
Historians are part of German academies, while
in the United States, when we talk about science,
we mostly refer to the physical and natural sciences.
I woud love to see American scientists embrace
a more Wissenschaft-lichte notion of science.
It would be a step toward comprehending how
natural scientific knowledge can effectively
interact with the intricate social and political
realities we face.