The Man Who Studies the Spread of Ignorance

This is a dupe of <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=10856554" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=10856554</a>.<p>(Yes, we&#x27;re working on a better dupe detector.)

I confess I am ignorant about how this second submission of an article recently discussed here[1] got through the duplicate submission filter. I do enjoy the article, as it illustrates a point I have often observed as a teacher: learners don&#x27;t start out with blank slates in their minds, but often have all kinds of preexisting misconceptions that have to be actively undone in any educational process.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=10856554" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=10856554</a>

I recently read a statistics books by Charles Wheelman in which he covers the topic of using statistics to manipulate facts. I have always taken statistical facts with a grain of salt, but when you understand the methods of manipulation and then review papers debating climate change for example, its mind blowing to see the manipulation of facts...by both sides of the argument.

Here is one of my favorites: &#x27;Microwave Ovens Cause Cancer&#x27;:<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.globalhealingcenter.com&#x2F;natural-health&#x2F;why-you-should-never-microwave-your-food&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.globalhealingcenter.com&#x2F;natural-health&#x2F;why-you-sh...</a><p>I mean, look at all the acronyms after this doctor&#x27;s name. Clearly he is expert. And his argument seems plausible to anyone who has not studied physics.<p>Here&#x27;s another one that is not quite as clear-cut: &#x27;Anti-perspirants Cause Cancer&#x27;.<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.webmd.com&#x2F;skin-problems-and-treatments&#x2F;features&#x2F;antiperspirant-facts-safety?page=2" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.webmd.com&#x2F;skin-problems-and-treatments&#x2F;features&#x2F;a...</a><p>&quot;&quot;There is no convincing evidence that antiperspirant or deodorant use increases cancer risk,&quot; Ted S. Gansler, MD, MBA, director of medical content for the American Cancer Society&quot;<p>Ah. Good. The American Cancer Society says anti-perspirants don&#x27;t cause cancer. To be safe, let&#x27;s check one more...<p>&quot;Because studies of antiperspirants and deodorants and breast cancer have provided conflicting results, additional research is needed to investigate this relationship and other factors that may be involved.&quot;<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cancer.gov&#x2F;about-cancer&#x2F;causes-prevention&#x2F;risk&#x2F;myths&#x2F;antiperspirants-fact-sheet" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cancer.gov&#x2F;about-cancer&#x2F;causes-prevention&#x2F;risk&#x2F;my...</a><p>oh... but a US government site says it is unclear. Better dig a little more...<p>&quot;Clinical studies ... provide supporting evidence for a role for locally applied cosmetic chemicals in the development of breast cancer.&quot;<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov&#x2F;pubmed&#x2F;16045991" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov&#x2F;pubmed&#x2F;16045991</a><p>Shit. The NIH says it does?<p>Better check Snopes before throwing away the Right Guard...<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.snopes.com&#x2F;medical&#x2F;toxins&#x2F;antiperspirant.asp" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.snopes.com&#x2F;medical&#x2F;toxins&#x2F;antiperspirant.asp</a><p>FALSE. &#x27;Nuff said.<p>&#x2F;s&#x2F;

Trump is a very good example of his hypothesis on the Republican side but he left an impression of bias by not balancing that with an example from the other side of which there are also plenty.

I find it really ironic that he feels the need to make contentless jabs at current political candidates in an effort to show how those candidates &quot;spread ignorance&quot;.

Interesting read, but not very much information underneath the fluff -- the definition of &quot;demagogue&quot; combined with a cursory knowledge of common logical fallacies covers pretty much everything here. It&#x27;s also interesting that an article like this is being published by an organization like the BBC; punditry is (I think) one of the most common examples of the phenomenon of obfuscation through constructed debate.

Looking at the dozens of &quot;chewing gum for the mind&quot; links surrounding the story, before I even read the article I wonder:<p>1) Is it possible to have real content on a clickbait site? Is this story, any story, worth an exception on the &quot;no platform for clickbait&quot; standard?<p>2) When did the BBC go full on tabloid clickbait? And on the tech side of clickbait, Ghostery only blocked ten trackers, and of course I block flash. BBC had (had!) an amazing reputation, but that was the BBC worldwide shortwave service in 1975, etc, but this is an internet clickbait site in 2016... what in the world happened?