How to Beat Science and Influence People: Policymakers and Propaganda in Epistemic Networks

In their recent book, Oreskes and Conway ([2010]) describe the ‘tobacco strategy’, which was used by the tobacco industry to influence policymakers regarding the health risks of tobacco products. The strategy involved two parts, consisting of (i) promoting and sharing independent research supporting the industry’s preferred position and (ii) funding additional research, but selectively publishing the results. We introduce a model of the tobacco strategy, and use it to argue that both prongs of the strategy can be extremely effective—even when policymakers rationally update on all evidence available to them. As we elaborate, this model helps illustrate the conditions under which the tobacco strategy is particularly successful. In addition, we show how journalists engaged in ‘fair’ reporting can inadvertently mimic the effects of industry on public belief. 1. Introduction2. Epistemic Network Models3. Selective Sharing4. Biased Production5. Journalists as Unwitting Propagandists6. Conclusion Appendix Introduction Epistemic Network Models Selective Sharing Biased Production Journalists as Unwitting Propagandists Conclusion Appendix

[1]  Justin P. Bruner,et al.  Experimentation by Industrial Selection , 2017, Philosophy of Science.

[2]  Sanjeev Goyal,et al.  Learning from Neighbors , 1995 .

[3]  Helen E. Longino,et al.  Body, Bias, and Behavior: A Comparative Analysis of Reasoning in Two Areas of Biological Science , 1983, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society.

[4]  C. Glymour,et al.  Making Things Happen: A Theory of Causal Explanation , 2004 .

[5]  Patrick C Phillips,et al.  POWER AND POTENTIAL BIAS IN FIELD STUDIES OF NATURAL SELECTION , 2004, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[6]  K. Elliott Is a Little Pollution Good for You?: Incorporating Societal Values in Environmental Research , 2014 .

[7]  E. A. Graham,et al.  Experimental Production of Carcinoma with Cigarette Tar , 2006 .

[8]  Christine Nadel Making Things Happen A Theory Of Causal Explanation , 2016 .

[9]  P. Kitcher Science, Truth, and Democracy , 2001 .

[10]  Ava M. Hoffman,et al.  Underappreciated problems of low replication in ecological field studies. , 2016, Ecology.

[11]  J. Weatherall,et al.  Do as I Say, Not as I Do, or, Conformity in Scientific Networks , 2018 .

[12]  H. Longino The Fate of Knowledge , 2001 .

[13]  Kevin J. S. Zollman The Epistemic Benefit of Transient Diversity , 2009 .

[14]  Kevin J. S. Zollman The Communication Structure of Epistemic Communities , 2007, Philosophy of Science.

[15]  Bennett Holman,et al.  The Problem of Intransigently Biased Agents , 2015, Philosophy of Science.

[16]  Andrea Gawrylewski,et al.  The misinformation age: How False Beliefs Spread. , 2019 .

[17]  Richard McElreath,et al.  The natural selection of bad science , 2016, Royal Society Open Science.

[18]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Empirical assessment of published effect sizes and power in the recent cognitive neuroscience and psychology literature , 2017, PLoS biology.

[19]  Cailin O'Connor,et al.  Scientific polarization , 2017, European Journal for Philosophy of Science.

[20]  E. A. Graham,et al.  Experimental production of carcinoma with cigarette tar. II. Tests with different mouse strains. , 1955, Cancer research.

[21]  Daniel Frey,et al.  What Is the Epistemic Function of Highly Idealized Agent-Based Models of Scientific Inquiry? , 2018 .

[22]  L. Bright On fraud , 2017 .

[23]  S. Goyal,et al.  Learning from neighbours , 1998 .

[24]  Philip Kitcher,et al.  Science in a Democratic Society , 2011 .

[25]  Heather Douglas Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal , 2009 .

[26]  Justin P. Bruner,et al.  In Epistemic Networks, Is Less Really More? , 2017, Philosophy of Science.

[27]  David Michaels,et al.  Doubt is their product. , 2005, Scientific American.

[28]  Brian A. Nosek,et al.  Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience , 2013, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[29]  Felipe Romero Can the behavioral sciences self-correct? A social epistemic study. , 2016, Studies in history and philosophy of science.

[30]  Philip Kitcher,et al.  The Division of Cognitive Labor , 1990 .

[31]  Celeste Monforton,et al.  Manufacturing uncertainty: contested science and the protection of the public's health and environment. , 2005, American journal of public health.

[32]  J. Ioannidis Why Most Published Research Findings Are False , 2005, PLoS medicine.

[33]  J. Weatherall,et al.  The Misinformation Age: How False Beliefs Spread , 2018 .

[34]  H. Longino Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry , 1990 .

[35]  Michael C. Frank,et al.  Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science , 2015, Science.