A Dive Into Why Misinformation Works
Technical Knowledge Level: Low
Time to read: 15 minutes
This is an immense topic, to the extent that we are building a course about it. It ranges from lies to propaganda to marketing, and the numerous bodies that exist to perpetuate that information, or those that find the truth. Where it gets complicated is that humans are a species that are heavily dependent on the information passed down from generation to generation, and will usually only believe what they choose to believe. You can show someone all the facts and evidence in the world, but if you go about it the wrong way, you will never convince them. This is why this article is written for both everyone, and no one.
First, let's explore scientific theory, WAIT! Come back! I will keep this as painless as possible! I promise.
Let's break it down into 4 items*Citations below*:
An idea - You have a thought about something you saw or observed.
Hypothesis - You took your idea and formed it into something testable.
Theory - Experts from multiple fields have tested, studied and documented your hypothesis. A wealth of evidence acts as a foundation that allows you to explain why something happens. This is multiple experiments done by multiple groups, that all point in the same direction.
Law - Experts from multiple fields have tested. studied and documented your hypothesis. A large body of evidence acts as a foundation that allows you to (often mathematically) predict what will happen. If you do X and Y, you get Z every time.
Laws and Theories do different jobs. Newton's Law of Gravitation calculates the pull between two objects. Einstein's Theory of General Relativity explains why that pull exists.
You may notice how I didn't use words like truth or confirmed, and it is why some groups of people start and stop at the idea stage, yet seem to be so credible to many.
Intent
A scientists job is to do science. A businesses job is to do business.
A humans job is to survive.
In the world we have cultivated, we have created some interesting forces to contend with.
Starvation with a glut of accessible food.
Taking from the many, to give to the few.
The more bombastic, the more accurate.
For some reason, the faster, louder and more sensational the information, the more accurate people tend to think it will be. The more far fetched, the taller the tale, the more you usually get paid to tell it. Few people want to hear the details of decades of science that has been done by hundreds of labs and thousands of scientists to confirm a theory. It also takes a lot more time to get to the heart of a topic.
Imagine the life you have lived, in its entirety. Can someone you just met, tell you who you are? How accurate do you think their idea of you is? Can someone really understand the whole of your life in an instant? Did you just think of some people that have known you for a very long time, and how some of them would be pretty accurate, but some other ones would be way off? You now have a hypothesis to test who is closest to you.
“If everybody always lies to you, the consequence is not that you believe the lies, but rather that nobody believes anything any longer… And a people that no longer can believe anything cannot make up its mind. It is deprived not only of its capacity to act but also of its capacity to think and to judge. And with such a people you can then do what you please.” —Hannah Arendt
This quote has been manipulated to death and back, but I believe it sums things up well, especially coming from over 50 years ago. This sums up why misinformation works.
We live now in a world where we need look more into the intent, than the message.
Why does this exist?
Who paid for it to be here?
What does that person hope to gain from it?
Does it affect me directly or indirectly?
Is it true, false or does it need longer in the science oven?
Is X a viable source of information? Would you trust an article condemning the existence of trees written by a logging company?
What is the solution?
There are 3 main things you can use as tools to protect your mental ecosystem from infectious & malicious information.
Citations - These are amazing tools that should be attached to most writing, especially if it's scientific in nature.
Some articles are written with dubious intent, and will use a citation, that links to an article with another citation. I like to call these "citation chains", following this chain will eventually lead to the primary document that spawned it, and it can often provide the answer to "Who paid for this" or "Is X a viable source of information".
Healthy Skepticism - This is a very hard task for a lot of people, as it requires the self control to not be swept away by sensational information and requires a high level of diligence to identify if the information "affects you directly or indirectly" and "is X a viable source of information". It also means that you have to be able to check your own personal bias and be willing to change your opinion if the data is strong enough.
We have the ability to place any opinion on the internet, there is a lot of ease picking and choosing your research so solidify your opinion, even if you are incorrect. You can find any opinion on any subject if you look hard enough.
What source has better citations? Are those citations written by John the Logger or The Aggressive Logging Company or We Who Love Trees or The Science Lab With No Stake In The Game? The first 3 have very strong reasons to have bias in one direction or another, the last is unlikely to profit from logging and will likely have the most unbiased opinion.
To be direct, if the article has no citations, and didn't come from a first person experience, it is likely fabricated. If the citation chain doesn't take you to an original source or a study, it is likely fabricated as well.
Avoid Information Overload - The amount of information that exists is literally infinite, both factual and dubious. You do not need to know everything and be up to date on every topic.
Choose what is important to you and keep that information up to date.
Identify and understand the different opinions of the topics that are important to you, see how that information is used and who it is used by.
Be open to new information, and willing to put in the effort in researching that information and confirming how accurate or inaccurate it is.
I have added the research and endpoints of research chains to this document, primarily, it is important to reference your research if you are not writing from memory, and secondarily I wanted to show you what research for a short article should usually look like. I also learned a lot doing this, as I had more than a few misunderstandings about theories and hypothesis', which is the simple, quiet joy of research.
Citations
Theory vs. Law Distinction
Anticole, M. (2016, June 7). What's the difference between a scientific law and theory? TED-Ed Blog. https://blog.ed.ted.com/2016/06/07/whats-the-difference-between-a-scientific-law-and-theory-in-ted-ed-gifs/
Chemistry LibreTexts. (2025, July 28). 1.6: Hypothesis, theories, and laws. LibreTexts Chemistry. https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Introductory_Chemistry/Introductory_Chemistry_(LibreTexts)/01:_The_Chemical_World/1.06:_Hypothesis_Theories_and_Laws
Matson, R. (n.d.). Scientific laws and theories. Kennesaw State University Faculty Web. https://facultyweb.kennesaw.edu/rmatson/links/theories.php
Science for Georgia. (n.d.). Theory vs. law. Science for Georgia. https://scienceforgeorgia.org/knowledge-base1/theory-vs-law/
Baird, C. (2024, July 24). What is the difference between a law, a principle, a theory, and a hypothesis in science? Science Questions with Surprising Answers, West Texas A&M University. https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2024/07/24/what-is-the-difference-between-a-law-a-principle-a-theory-and-a-hypothesis-in-science/
Falsifiability and Provisional Nature of Scientific Knowledge
Thornton, S. (1997, November 13). Karl Popper. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/
Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia. (2010, January 14). Criterion of falsifiability. Encyclopædia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/criterion-of-falsifiability
McLeod, S. (2023, July 31). Karl Popper: Falsification theory. Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/karl-popper.html
Giorello, G., & Sindoni, E. (2014, January 30). Falsifications and scientific progress: Popper as sceptical optimist. Lettera Matematica, 1(4), 179–184. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40329-014-0031-7
Primary Source
Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. Hutchinson & Co. (Original work published 1934 as Logik der Forschung).
Hannah Arendt Quote
Arendt, H. (1978, October 26). Hannah Arendt: From an interview. The New York Review of Books. (Original interview conducted 1973 with Roger Errera). https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1978/10/26/hannah-arendt-from-an-interview/
Comments