hired a few decades ago to fight regulation of the tobacco industry in the U.S. because of the science-based knowledge of the carcinogenic properties of tobacco smoke. The goal was not necessarily to convince, but instill doubt and uncertainty.
I don't think it's quite that straightforward. The tobacco industry was absolutely petrified of lawsuits.
Jeffrey Wigand (former chief scientist of Brown and Williamson; his story is dramatized in the film "The Insider" (Russell Crowe)) has said that in meetings etc. they would ALWAYS have a lawyer in the room, so that all communication was "privileged."
Ultimately, the tobacco companies did little to market and develop "safer" alternatives, with the only successful but modest development really being the "filter." (Incidentally, in the 1960's, a brand of cigarettes was introduced that had
filters containing asbestos!)
But then neither did anyone else, with a "puritanical" approach adopted, even though there's nothing wrong* with nicotine per se (except it is addictive)--it demonstrably
enhances cognitive performance. The pharmaceutical companies/health organisations developed "nicotine replacement therapies" (NRT's) (
nicotine gum, etc.) that weren't intended to replace smoking but aids to quitting, and delivered
too little nicotine and too slowly.
(* Essentially. Probably best avoided if you suffer from hypertension!)
Whilst there was a dramatic reduction in adult smoking in "Western" countries, millions continued to smoke in spite of the risks staring them in the face on every packet. The result of this sad story is the arrival of a
suitable replacement, namely "
e-cigarettes," took decades longer than it should have--and came from
"outside the system"--that is, China.
The "evil tobacco companies" (and they certainly could be considered "evil") version of events is as much of a "meme" as anything.
These methods have been further refined by the heavily (fossil fuel industry) financed efforts of the "climate denial" sector. (Climate denial = those who deny the reality of anthropogenic global warming and climate change/)
As with the tobacco companies above, it is more complex than this, with poor outcomes.
Like most people, I know very little about the "climate "--it's an extremely complex chaotic system with many feedback mechanisms. "Climate denial" itself is propaganda; it serves to close down conversation--it is certainly
not scientific language.
A very political subject so I'll give a factual example of a "poor outcome."
In the UK, CO2 emissions have been
cut by <35% since 1990; whilst they have risen in China by >350% (see
same link), a country that has been building coal-fired power plants at the rate of 1 a week, and now accounts for ~30% of global CO2 emissions--and many countries have effectively
exported CO2 emissions by buying
transferring the manufacture of goods to China.
At the same time, the UK has ended up with a dwindling power generation capability, having phased out coal, and not built any nuclear power stations for decades. "Renewable" energy (wind) has been introduced, but overall the power generation capacity is at risk given the dynamic nature of "renewable" energy sources, and since many old power stations are reaching the end of their useful life.
Across the channel, France has more than ample nuclear power generation capability, which supplies the majority of electrical power used. Its
CO2 emissions in 1990 were about the same as the UK's are today, and they remain less than the UK's. "Environmental" organisations, I think it fair to say, generally don't like nuclear.
The UK can do
very much better than this, as can many other countries.
not in treating the many mental health problems suffered by humans.
Very effective psychological therapies have been developed for "common" mental health problems, with a solid evidence base that they do work. In the UK there has been some effort in the healthcare system towards the provision of psychological therapy and other interventions over simply prescribing anti-depressants. It hasn't gone far enough, but the awareness is there.
"Serious" mental health problems, e.g. psychosis (Schizophrenia, severe depression with psychotic episodes, etc.) with delusions and hallucinations, is more puzzling and even with drugs difficult (not least since suffers can't tell reality from delusions, so discontinue medication--hmm, maybe this sounds like "subjectivists," LOL.)
The field of psychology is very broad, with subdisciplines ranging from cognitive psychology (inc. information theory etc.--lossy codecs are informed by this), to perception, to evolutionary, to...
The propaganda technique of including bits of truth/fact mixed in with lots of B.S. and falsehoods was honed to a high level of effectiveness by the professionals
Perhaps so. But is the "What Hi-Fi?" article a good example? The most indisputably factual point is at the bottom of the article. Maybe placing it at the end is supposed to be effective, e.g. being memorable as last, but on a webpage, many will simply not even scroll to the end after reading some of the utter "twaddle" above. So, I'd wonder whether it was actually intentionally written as "propaganda" in respect of including truths amongst "nonsense"?
Thinking about it, though, I suspect the overarching objective of What Hi-Fi? is simply to
keep the "hi-fi industry" going--and that means getting people into specialist hi-fi dealers, and buying
high margin accessories. The inclusion of the "all channels driven" output power capability item seems like one way of getting people away from "mass market" electronics and on to specialist product and vendors, with the never-ending "upgrade path" of continuous purchases. And that, of course, means continuously purchasing or reading the publication! When I read the magazine, "back in the day," they were
very dismissive of AVR's for non-video/surround sound use, as they were "not designed for music."
More broadly, in the UK, the anti-scientific approach goes back to the infamous demonstrations by Linn/Naim in the 1970's, and the rise of "subjectivism."
Douglas Self has written a good article on this.
I think the reality is deeper than that, but it's a good starting point.
)
