insanity is to continue to argue with the insane...

I have just engaged in the most pointless FB argument ever.  An old acquaintance posted, without irony or hesitation, that the US government has a depopulation agenda, wants an Ebola pandemic, and will bring the survivors to their knees.  I engaged my science librarian self asking for his list of peer-reviewed articles and evidence from virologists, and said to spare me the URLs from conspiracy web sites and blogs. He responded, and, I can't really remember the diatribe that came out of his mouth, other than the fact that he responded in ALL CAPS, and I cannot read conspiracy rants in ALL CAPS, sorry, dude.  He mentioned the "well-known government's depopulation agenda", and I responded that it can't be all that well known, as I didn't know this to be a fact.

I have been thinking about how I do science literacy instruction here at the library, and I am realizing that I have been focusing too much on how to find library sources, such as journal articles and books, and not enough time on science literacy.  I do talk a good deal about finding authoritative sources, and how to tell the difference between a solid, scholarly web site/journal article and something that is not authoritative, but I don't think I provide enough context as to why this is important.  Having these skills are not only important in scholarship, but also in one's personal life as one grapples with all the claims and statistics floating around on the interwebz, especially pertaining to science.  There is an epidemic of junk science that is leading to science refusal and distrust of the people who have spent their lives doing research and gaining expertise, and when we consider a Playboy bunny an authoritative source on vaccines, rather than our physicians or our scientists, we have a serious problem.  We cite Rush Limbaugh on climate change and poo poo climate researchers who almost unanimously agree that humans are affecting global climates. We are a nation of people who are overly confident in our opinions, and opine far out of our expert domain.  Though I am a lefty like many celebrities, I do not go to my favorite celebrity for opinions on scientific matters. I do not go to an anonymous blogger, or an organization funded by corporate interests.  I try to search scholarly databases and look for peer-reviewed articles by experts.  This is something I try to instill in my students, and clearly, I  need to stress this more. It's not about a political agenda- I will reverse my opinions if I am showed clear, authoritative evidence that I am wrong.  It's about teaching and learning critical thinking skills, and we, as a nation, are doing a horrific job here.

My problem with conspiracy theorists is that they are indiscriminate when it comes to assessing information sources.  They have a pre-set agenda, and take any information as truth that suits their agenda without close examination.  And, they have a built in refusal tool.  If I present statistics from the CDC, well, the CDC is in on the conspiracy, so I can't trust their statistics.  If I present evidence by scholars and researchers at universities, hell, they are bought off by the powers-that-be, and cannot be trusted.  So, anything I bring to them that refutes a wild conspiracy is information that THE GOVERNMENT WANTS YOU TO BELIEVE.  And then, they deposit a list of links from frothy-mouthed blogs made by people I have never heard of with no expertise on the topic, and I cannot possibly trace the information back to an authoritative source; nor can they either. So, distrust the experts, but trust any Joe Blow who posts that they KNOW the truth.  Last night, my husband showed me a photo posted on a UFO FB group that "proved" that aliens visited the moon.  Note- he was once part of the UFOlogy community.  He recognized the graphic as coming from a fictional movie! If I catch conspiracy nuts in the act of believing something so easily refuted, how can I trust them on anything else they claim is true?

Do I believe conspiracies are possible?  Certainly.  Anything is possible.But do I believe that hundreds, even thousands of elite people can be in on the conspiracy and keep it secret?  Have you ever tried to get even 10 friends to keep a secret? Or get a group of 10 co-workers and talk them into sharing your agenda? Herding people is only slightly less difficult than herding cats, and to believe that everyone with any kind of important office in the CDC, NIH, the US Government, working as a researcher, all have a secret handshake, a shared agenda, and a willingness to keep their traps shut is so farfetched I cannot imagine anyone older than 15 buying into this.

I did finally extract myself from the FB argument.  You cannot argue with crazy, these people have their own circular logic that does not accept any evidence they don't want to see, and it is a pointless waste of my time to even go there.  Some of these people I remember as once being chill, fun, easy to hang out with. I wonder what happened to their psyche that caused them to walk around with so much paranoia and anxiety.

As far as Ebola, it's useless to point out the facts of the disease- ie, not airborne, not easily transmitted, because THAT IS WHAT THE CDC WANTS US TO BELIEVE.  Never mind that anyone in the government with even half a brain would want to allow a pandemic inside our borders that might end up killing him or her. And, hell, if it kills us all, there would be nobody left to control.  There is no logic to it.  And I have to learn to walk away and allow the illogical to remain illogical.  All I can do is to work with my undergrads and show them critical thinking and good research skills and hope that it sticks.