Buzz
The concept of 'alternative facts' is far from a new phenomenon. As tribal beings, humans often place irrational trust in authority figures, selectively consume news that aligns with their beliefs, and cling to ideas that form part of their identity. The rise of social media and a deeply polarized press has given way to an era of anti-intellectualism. Thankfully, research suggests that it is possible to shield oneself from the influence of alternative facts. However, the truth remains elusive for now.
10. The Fake News Boom in Macedonia
In 2016, the Macedonian city of Veles saw a surge in fake news activity. Over 140 politically charged US-based websites were created in this Balkan town, many of which were fiercely pro-Trump and aimed at the conservative American audience. The largest of these sites garnered hundreds of thousands of followers. Site owners revealed to BuzzFeed that the key to driving traffic was publishing sensational and often misleading content that catered to Trump supporters.
9. Immunizing Against Alternative Facts
A January study published by Global Challenges demonstrated that people can be 'inoculated' against alternative facts. The researchers discovered that exposing individuals to small amounts of misinformation could help them later identify fake news. To test this, they focused on one of the largest misinformation campaigns: global warming. Study lead Dan Kahan pointed out that despite a 97 percent scientific consensus on human responsibility for global temperature rise, this statistic is largely ineffective as so many people reject it due to the influence of misinformation and fake news.
The researchers also found that inoculation could reduce the impact of misinformation by anywhere from half to two-thirds. Furthermore, they found that “inoculation messages” were similarly effective in shifting the views of Republicans, Independents, and Democrats toward the conclusions of climate science. One of the most intriguing findings was that “no one likes to be deceived”—even groups who were primed to dismiss climate change as a conspiracy theory.
8. News Tailored to Our Beliefs
In 2007, researchers from Ohio State University aimed to demonstrate that individuals tend to select news that reinforces their own beliefs. They tracked the reading behaviors of 156 students on controversial topics such as abortion, gun control, and minimum wage. The study revealed that participants spent 36 percent more time reading articles that reflected their views. Moreover, they had a 58 percent chance of choosing content that aligned with their perspectives. Those with strong political affiliations, conservative readers, and individuals more engaged in politics were even more likely to consume opposing viewpoints.
A 2009 study at Brigham Young University explored the reading habits of self-identified 'political junkies.' This group, representing five percent of the population, was found to prefer blogs over traditional news sources. While 30 percent of political junkies considered blogs to be more accurate, only 8 percent trusted traditional media more.
6. The Rise of American Anti-Intellectualism
In his groundbreaking 1963 book Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, Richard Hofstadter claimed that anti-intellectualism was 'older than our national identity.' The work was sparked by a moment of frustration when Republicans ridiculed presidential candidate and former Illinois governor Adlai Stevenson as an 'egghead.' Hofstadter defined anti-intellectualism as 'a resentment of the life of the mind and those who are seen as representing it.'
Hofstadter did not suggest that Americans were unintelligent. In fact, they excelled in professional intelligence, which is practical and utilitarian. He was particularly concerned about the 'cult of practicality,' where children were expected to think only in monetary terms. His core argument was that Americans valued 'technician conformity' and 'manipulative skills' over creativity or individuality. A Pew study found that only 29 percent of Americans read newspapers, while a Jenkins Group report revealed that 58 percent of college graduates never pick up a book after finishing school.
5. Legislated Ignorance
On January 11, 2017, South Dakota introduced Senate Bill No. 55 (SB 55), which was quickly labeled the first anti-science legislation of the year. This 'alternative facts' bill allowed educators to discuss the 'strengths and weaknesses of scientific information'—a veiled reference to intelligent design and climate change denial. SB 55 passed through the senate with a 23-12 vote. Fortunately, the House Education Committee voted it down on February 22, 2017, with an 11–4 vote, despite a Republican majority.
In 2015, State Senator Jeff Monroe introduced a nearly identical bill, SB 114. However, this proposal was ultimately abandoned when Monroe insisted on including 'intelligent design' explicitly. SB 114 would have prevented school boards and administrators from stopping teachers from promoting intelligent design. Many view SB 55 as a more disguised version of the same proposal. Supporters of both bills argued that they were designed to protect 'freedom.'
4. Volkswagens and Tobacco
Kevin Elliot from Michigan State University recently cautioned that we must be vigilant about alternative facts, not only from politicians but also from corporations, the media, and even unconventional scientists. The Volkswagen emissions scandal is one of the latest examples. The company had installed software that enabled their vehicles to cheat emissions tests, causing their cars to release 40 times the pollution allowed under EPA regulations. Volkswagen ultimately agreed to a $14.7 billion settlement.
Since the 1950s, the tobacco industry has been in the business of promoting alternative facts. Professor Elliot notes that 'the industry created a comprehensive playbook of tactics designed to cast doubt on the health risks of smoking.' According to Elliot, the key to their success is employing the same skepticism that we use every day with the people we trust when confronted with the 'latest scientific breakthrough.'
3. Authority
It’s not intelligence or education that determines our beliefs, but rather who we regard as an 'authority.' A study published on July 25, 2016, in the journal Public Understanding of Science uncovered that evangelicals and non-evangelicals are not only exposed to different sources of facts, but they process this information in vastly different ways. Evangelical Christians tend to place more trust in religious authority when it comes to science and technology, while non-evangelicals with more scientific knowledge trust university professors more. Interestingly, the more scientific knowledge an evangelical has, the less they tend to trust university scientists.
The consequences are alarming. 'Facts' are failing to unite people. Different groups have fundamentally different methods for discerning truth, and until these disparate systems are aligned, achieving consensus is unlikely. This could lead to significant issues. As Patrick Stokes of The Sydney Morning Herald wrote, 'Deliberate rejection of science has become an epidemic to rival the very diseases that science has helped prevent.'
2. Issues of Identity
In January, a research team from the University of Oregon uncovered that 'social identity,' rather than anti-science views, lies at the heart of science denial. They found that our relationship with science is more complex than we think. Half of Americans reject the theory of evolution, two-thirds doubt the existence of consensus on climate change, and the anti-vaccination movement continues to grow. Interestingly, the National Science Foundation reports that 75 percent of Americans support using tax money for scientific research.
Social pressures can lead us to cling to irrational beliefs. According to Matthew Hornsey from the University of Queensland, beliefs are tough to change because we tend to 'cherry-pick' information that aligns with our views. For example, addressing climate change may be seen as harmful to the free market, which contradicts traditional conservative ideologies. For someone in the fundamentalist community, expressing belief in evolution could be viewed as distancing themselves from the group, signaling that they are adopting an outsider's perspective.
1. Postmodern Truth
Postmodernism is a theoretical framework that emerged from linguistics and soon influenced a wide range of disciplines in the arts and sciences. The central idea is that reality is inseparable from perception. As Peter Peregrine from Lawrence University explains, one example of this is Trump's inauguration. For someone who had never attended an inauguration, it may have seemed like one of the largest crowds they had ever witnessed. For someone familiar with inaugurations, the crowd would appear relatively small. According to postmodern theory, both perceptions are valid. Despite witnessing the same 'fact,' personal bias shapes our 'truth.'
The most extreme form of postmodernism is solipsism—the belief that 'I am the only mind that exists.' Existence equals 'my existence.' Truth becomes 'my truth.' Professor Peregrine gives an example of this by stating that 'the inauguration broke attendance records because it did in Trump’s mind.' In this worldview, the 'self' is considered the ultimate source of authority.
