Memories of the 28th Century

On another forum to which I belong there recently was a question about propaganda. A request was made for information about how to write propaganda. After some initial comments about advertising and ordinary public relations writing. People started suggesting real world examples, such as the jingoism and appeals to greatness that Hitler and others have used. And it was pointed out the heavy-handed propaganda that some have used isn’t as effective as the subtle propaganda that has become popular in the U.S.A. in the last several decades, and I pointed out that the propaganda that led up to the Iraq War was quite typical, plausible lies, and another example of that method is what the Climate Change people have presented. If we look at history, then we can see many similar examples of plausible lies having been presented as actual facts.

Using plausible lies instead of big lies creates the possibility that the people who detect the propaganda can be made to look wrong, even when they trundle out the actual facts, because the propagandists have a denial already prepared, or, as the climate changers have done, they claim that the people with the facts are in denial or denying science. It’s the sooty pot calling the new kettle black, but most people don’t bother checking facts.

Alas, the facts are often too trivial to be considered important, and most people have no idea what is going on outside their immediate group, profession, etc. That is, few people have a fair overall view of what is going on in the world as a whole. And most people have been trained to accept as fact things that are presented in certain ways.

It is shocking how much propaganda is presented as education, but major parts of education are the frameworks for understanding information. On the other hand, most people are not taught Occam's razor as a part of formal education. To illustrate this, I just recalled that a great many conspiracy theories are presented in the same ways as propaganda; that is, they are presented as plausible. Whether they are plausible lies or plausible facts has to be taken on a case by case basis. Plausible lies cannot survive in an ocean of actual facts, so propaganda and conspiracy theories grow best in matters that are not well known. Whether the ignorance of these matters is from someone having put a lid on something, distance in time or space, or ignorance of the basics facts that relate to the matter.

A few days ago I found out that someone I run into regularly still believes that the attack of September 11, 2001 was other than what the reported facts say. There probably are millions who think what he does, but learning a few basic facts would change the minds of all but a few of them. (Oh, just consider the temperature where steel starts to soften.)

Another way that people can be confused by information is when there is too much information available, and determining what information is factual and what is fantasy is impossible, because the actual facts are not available. The Kennedy Assassination falls into this category. If every claim of who killed JFK is true, then there were at least seven people (representing Cuban freedom fighters, the Mafia, other organizations, and one man was alone) hiding around Dealey Plaza with weapons, and at least five shots were fired. And, in addition, there are claims that LBJ was responsible, and he had some other people there. There is testimony from people who claim to have been there, and they all have evidence to back them up. Some of that information must have been dreamed up, but there’s no way to tell anymore, and we don’t have a time machine available. This is an example of Occam's razor not having been used, and entities were allowed to multiply.

So how does one detect propaganda? It requires information and the sense to use the information. There are many people who have the basic information necessary to make claims of anthropogenic global warming or climate change look silly, but most people who know what a molecular dipole is and that they are the kind of molecule that is required for a greenhouse gas don’t know the CO2 has only a very slight dipole moment to the very slight degree; water vapor and methane are much stronger dipoles. That kind of associative thinking is important in catching propagandists. Not everyone can use that kind of thinking, and it isn’t easy to teach.

Are we doomed? Of course we are, but we may be able to stave off the final doom by actually encouraging people to look at the world as a whole, to consider the interactions of the various components of the universe. And we shouldn’t discourage young students by requiring them to conform to the limited curriculum that the federal government is trying to impose on the states, even though education is not among the powers of the federal government. We might also consider teaching logic in elementary schools, but that would be difficult, because few of the teachers know much about philosophy at all, and much less logic.

There are additional steps that I would take, if I were running things, but I’m not, so we will have to suffer with half measures. And you will have to learn enough about many subjects that people can't pull the wool over your eyes.