What is the Anti-Science Brigade?
There is a growing anti-science movement that is broken up into many parts, with very few of them admitting they are anti-science. Anti-Science Brigade is also a video game with a narrative aimed at dissecting how logical people can get wrapped up in these anti-science wormholes. The anti-science movements are numerous, but some of the bigger or more noticeable ones are those that believe in a flat earth, believe that climate change is a hoax, dismiss the science of vaccines, are 5G conspiracy theorists, are anti-GMO, or reject the science of evolution. These are some of the most prevalent today, but there are plenty that have fizzled out, including a movement that believed cigarette usage was healthy, even after substantial scientific evidence was released suggesting otherwise.
Interestingly, all of these anti-science branches use exactly the same tactics to ensnare new followers. This can help us identify what is actively anti-science and what might just be some healthy skepticism.
The Likemindedness of Flat Earthers and Climate Change Deniers
No matter what branch of anti-science, they are able to form believers from very similar patterns. Notably, clinging to a select few science denial “superstars,” like anti-vaccine propagandist Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Flat Earth Society President Daniel Shenton, or climate science denying geologist and author Ian Pilmer. Scientific consensus is ignored, instead fixating on cherry picked data and anecdote filled YouTube videos or movies. Their denial thrives in an echo chamber, which is made ever easier by the internet, allowing like-minded individuals to build a community that grows together. The larger the community, the harder it is to pull away from it and accept generally accepted truths.
How Scattered Anti-Science Groups Become a Brigade
Another unifying aspect of anti-science groups is a distrust of authority or government. This can lead someone interested in just one aspect of anti-science to branch out to another. For example, if an individual believes that the government is lying about the 1969 moon landing, how can we expect them to trust the government when they say a vaccine is safe? If someone has already positioned themself to doubt scientific consensus about vaccines, it might be expected they would doubt scientific consensus about climate change.
This can all lead to a dangerous snowball effect — a growing momentum of anti-science beliefs, so that when the government or other authority figure releases a statement any statement about scientific consensus or discovery, it is immediately met with a brigade of doubters and science deniers.
Does this Army of Anti-Science Followers Believe Science At All?
Yes. In fact, most Americans (this article focuses on Americans, but results are similar across the globe) have a positive perception of science. According to one study, “individuals with greater education, science education, and science literacy display more polarized beliefs” on issues such as climate change, stem cell research, the Big Bang, and human evolution, with political and religious identity having a much higher correlation with trust in science in these specific, more controversial issues. In another study, the more education one receives, the more polarizing their beliefs become on issues that become politicized, like climate change.
Ultimately, more education about science is always a good thing, but is not a clear solution to remove anti-science beliefs.
Oftentimes, there are beliefs that are based heavily in certain aspects of science that support their view. For example, GMOs are a complicated issue, as illustrated by this friendly video from Kurzgesagt. There are legitimate scientific concerns with issues surrounding GMOs, like the use of glyphosate, a pesticide commonly used with GMOs. These issues are worth debating, but what about groups that believe that any food that is genetically modified is harmful to humans? There is scientific consensus that GMOs are safe, but these groups will ignore those results, refusing to change their world views, as many believe their views to be an extension of their identity. “Our opinions are often based in emotion and group affiliation, not facts.”
Science demands that we must change our mind all the time.
Even aside from group affiliation, it’s simply very difficult to change anyone’s mind once they have come to a conclusion. One study found that even in fictitious scenarios, “once formed, impressions are remarkably perseverant.” This very human issue is at odds with what science demands of us: we must change our mind all the time. We still don’t know for sure what’s inside the darkness that lies between the stars in the sky. We are constantly learning new things about our universe; our very own planet; and even the food we eat. Previously held beliefs sometimes require changing to conform to new evidence.
What Can We Do?
There is no simple solution to solve the growing anti-science problem. The best way may be to start at the beginning — before someone sees misinformation, a poorly sourced article, or receives news from an untrustworthy source, we should do what we can to help everyone to improve their ability to identify trustworthy information. This is called an “inoculation technique”, and can be used to “help people identify methods commonly used to spread falsehoods before they are exposed to misinformation.”
Once that misinformation is digested and believed, how can we debate with someone who is unlikely to change their view? How does one even become susceptible to the anti-science mindset? This is what the game Anti-Science Brigade aims to address. You play as a character who is tricked into converting people over to the “anti-science” side of things and support their cause. You will meet over 50 different characters, all of them displaying how normally reasonable or intelligent people can become susceptible to conspiracy theories or science denial.
The game plays like an RPG, but instead of fireball spells or sword techniques, the characters use pro-science or anti-science tactics. The aim is to help people identify what strategies are often used by anti-science groups (unverified claims, strawman arguments, deflection, cherry picked data, etc.) versus what strategies pro-science communities can use to fight back (scholarly articles, emotional understanding, educational videos, fact checks, etc.).
Learning what tactics bring others into the anti-science fold, having calm discussions with people with different views, voting for pro-science candidates, engaging with scientific communities, and donating to pro-science causes like the National Center for Science Education are some of the best things we can do to combat the anti-science brigade today.
Who’s Responsible for the Uptick in Denial of Science? Follow the Money
Pushing anti-science views can be rather lucrative. Koch Industries have “spent over $88 million in *traceable* funding to groups attacking climate change science, policy and regulation.” ExxonMobil has spent over $650,000, and even though they’ve slowed or ended its funding of climate denial, the damage has already been done — the misinformation machine continues to churn. Some car companies have funded climate change denial and pollution denial efforts for decades. BP created the “carbon footprint” idea as a manipulative PR campaign to shift focus from the biggest polluters — corporations — to individuals and their personal decisions.
Anti-vaccine influencers receive hundreds of thousands of dollars to spout their views, many of the donations coming from the very wealthy, sometimes in the form of millions of dollars. The anti-vax video industry earns at least $36 million a year from ad revenue from social media sites like Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube.
Cigarette companies created this “doubt” campaign playbook a long time ago, but continue to use it today, and are doing the same thing with vaping.
Skepticism is always warranted when it comes to claims that go against scientific consensus… especially when it’s financially viable to do so. The claim that scientists are driven by money to produce pro-science evidence is baseless and ridiculous — especially since scientific consensus is often worldwide. It is possible to find one or two scientists willing to make absurd claims for cash, but it is nigh impossible for scientists to find the same results, repeatedly, on a worldwide scale.
Benefits to Moving Away From Anti-Science
There are very clear benefits to having more people supporting and believing in science, some more obvious than others. More vaccinated people means more protections from diseases. More people aware of the real dangers of climate change means more research into solutions as well as nations more apt to push for necessary regulations on the highest polluters.
Less obvious is just how many people we have missing from the helpful debate table. Debating whether climate change is happening or if it caused by humans is not helpful anymore. Finding solutions for climate change is incredibly complex; we need as many people on board as possible. We should be debating the use of nuclear power, what cap limits are appropriate for limiting harmful emissions, how to fund new power solutions, what individuals can and should be expected to do, and what individual nations should be doing about it. Kurzgesagt has several informative and easy to watch videos detailing the complexities involved: start with this one explaining who is responsible for climate change.
Origin of the Term “Anti-Science Brigade”
It was probably used before, but the earliest account of this term I have found came from Tony Blair in 2006 during his time as UK’s Prime Minister. He declared that we “need scientists willing and able to explain, to reason, to give the scientific facts not by arrogant assertion but by patience and also accurately reflecting where science is fact and where it is still conjecture … the anti-science brigade threatens our progress and our prosperity. We need political and science leadership that stands up to them.”
Further Reading
Every underlined phrase in this article links to further reading, viewing, or sources for information in this article. That’s about two dozen sites to visit!
Further Playing
Play Anti-Science Brigade on Steam. A mobile release is planned for the near future.
Maybe I’m Wrong
I don’t know everything. Maybe I got something wrong. But that’s okay! I am ready to be corrected — we all should be ready. Take delight in being wrong. Be willing to learn — and don’t listen to the anti-science brigade. There’s too much at risk. 🌎
