There have been quite a few cases where "science" was used for "willful and deceitful spreading of lies".
See for example how now we find out that the whole "fats are bad for you, carbs are good" scientific "fact" was manufactured by the sugar industry.
This has infested the highest level of the scientific establishment (the american dietary recomandations), so you can't say that it was only the uninformed who were deceived.
yes, but that is most definitely NOT the point of the anti-science propaganda (moon landing is a hoax, chemtrails, flat earth, etc.++).
The point of that nonsense is to sow distrust in all institutions, especially science. Since the susceptible people have no real idea about how science works, it's just swapping out one belief structure or another (even tho it's promoted as 'think for yourself', that doesn't work if you don't have the tools -- your ignorance is just as good as any experts' knowledge).
Once the actual experts are distrusted, any belief can be swapped in for these people, who are now useful idiots (in the Lennin sense).
>yes, but that is most definitely NOT the point of the anti-science propaganda (moon landing is a hoax, chemtrails, flat earth, etc.++).
It's not its literal expression -- but it could very well be the point.
Those people don't opt for "moon landing is a hoax, chemtrails, flat earth" because of the inherent value in those propositions.
There's a sentimental reason behind that attachment, and it has more to do with a distrust in science and "all institutions" that stems from the damage they've seen them do, and the lies those can say that affect their daily life.
A subsequent attachment to e.g. "moon hoax" is an extreme way to express that. Like a kid who rebels against their parents and becomes e.g. a neo-nazi, or takes heroin, but their real problem is that their dad beats mom, or mom is a control freak, or whatever.
In other words, these people opt for things like the "moon hoax conspiracy" in the same way that a society under some big fear opts for movies that represent this fear metaphorically (e.g. the Godzilla movies in post-Hiroshima Japan, or the zombie movies in the US https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/31/13440402/... ).
But one has to see beyond the surface to actually understand these people (and of course some are just nuts).
You're talking about the 'pull-side', the psych reasons (beyond mere ignorance) that pull people into this crap.
I'm talking about the reasons behind the 'push-side', the reasons all this crap is produced & promoted, which is to harness all those latent problems into a weaponized political mass that can do real damage.
I disagree about the direction of cause and effect here. The distrust comes first, then people go for nutty "alternative fact" stuff.
We have many reasons to distrust our institutions. Trust is hard to earn and easy to lose. For starters in my life span I've watched us be consciously lied into one major $1T+ war, a series of bank bailouts that enriched those responsible for a financial crisis at the expense of the general public, the largest financial fraudster in recent memory (Bernie Madoff) being short-listed for SEC director prior to his scam collapsing, and countless cases of "science for hire" (nutritional science is the worst) being used to sell stuff.
I feel like our authorities are harping on "fake news" and related things to evade their own responsibility for this mess.
Right, the mistrust creates the fertile soil on which these conspiracy theories can grow & spread. And I completely agree that we have massive legitimate cause for mistrust.
But they don't create & promote the theories, then weaponize the believers.
E.g., you and I don't watch the scams, then go out & produce videos about how the world is flat, jet condensation trail are chemical sprays to kill us all, etc., etc..
That comes from sources truing to manipulate & weaponize the ambient discontent.
But the lie was overcome by the efforts of countless dietary researchers employed at major institutions, so it was not at all a conspiracy of all the scientists. That is quite the contrary of what the people who have declared war on science are claiming.
>But the lie was overcome by the efforts of countless dietary researchers employed at major institutions, so it was not at all a conspiracy of all the scientists.
It's never "a conspiracy of all the scientists". It doesn't take one either. You just need to spread enough of your own brand of "scientific results" to be able to sell to the public. It doesn't even have to be the most prestigious research -- you can pay to have the press releases appear in all kinds of magazines as "fact".
That's what the food industry has been done for ages with tons of research on the benefits of this or that ingredient, or promoting this or that kind of diet (depending on the manufacturer). It helps that those doing it are not just some regular food company making $100 million per year (and which doesn't have much clout), but huge conglomerates like Coca Cola, Nestle and co, that control a large part of the processed food market.
>That is quite the contrary of what the people who have declared war on science are claiming.
When people revolt against something, it's important to distinguish some general sentiment and its context, from what some of them might be literally saying.
A large mass movement can never articulate itself well -- they move in platitudes, often opt for the easiest slogans, and often have more people attached who are not the most representative, just the most vocal (and extreme).
Rosa Parks, for example, might have gone as "I should be able to sit in front of the bus", but the gesture actually meant "I want to be treated as equal, period".
See for example how now we find out that the whole "fats are bad for you, carbs are good" scientific "fact" was manufactured by the sugar industry.
This has infested the highest level of the scientific establishment (the american dietary recomandations), so you can't say that it was only the uninformed who were deceived.