The Agenda with Steve Paikin (Audio) - The Hidden Danger of Information Chaos

Episode Date: January 10, 2025

What is going on with the scientific research? How do product labels manipulate us? Can we trust online reviews? Timothy Caulfield dives into all of these issues in his new book: "The Certainty Illusion: What You Don't Know and Why it Matters." See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I'm Matt Nethersole. And I'm Tiff Lam. From TVO Podcasts, this is Queries. This season, we're asking, when it comes to defending your beliefs, how far is too far? We follow one story from the boardroom to the courtroom. And seek to understand what happens when beliefs collide. Where does freedom of religion end and freedom from discrimination begin? That's this season on Queries in Good Faith,

a TVO original podcast. Follow and listen wherever you get your podcasts. In his new book, The Certainty Illusion, What You Don't Know and Why It Matters, author Timothy Caulfield looks at what factors are contributing to an information crisis. He is also a professor in the Faculty of Law and the School of Public Health

at the University of Alberta, and School of Public Health at the University of Alberta and research director at the school's Health Law Institute. And Timothy Caulfield joins us now from where you're a busy guy. You're like not just cross appointed, you're triply cross appointed here. Busy times. You know, being a scholar that studies how information is presented in the public sphere, it's a tough time. It is a tough time, yes.

That's a bit of an understatement. All right, let's start with a quote from the book here, shall we? Sheldon, bring the graphic up if you would. The present reality, our information environment, that space where we seek, contribute to, and interact with the world's knowledge is completely and truly a word I can't say on television.

F'd. It is a tangle of lies, distortions, and rage-filled rants. This has created a massive paradox. We have more access to more knowledge than ever before, and at the same time, less and less certainty about the issues that matter to us. That is very well put. How did we get here? And it sounds so grim.

Well, it is grim. It is grim. And I really do think, this is going to sound like hyperbole, but I really feel like we are in the midst of a knowledge creation crisis. It's a knowledge crisis.

And I think we got here many ways. And of course the obvious factor is absolutely our information ecosystem, the social media, the internet, but also the knowledge production side of the equation. There's more and more content out there. And all of that content has become increasingly politicized, twisted, polarized, weaponized, because we crave certainty. Well, that's the crazy thing about this, right?

We know there is tons of misinformation and disinformation out there, and yet we have never been more certain in our own views and listening to the others in our own echo chamber. That, just on the face of it, seems not to make sense. And you're right about it. And I think one of the phenomenon that's happening is because certainty and clarity and the tools that we use to find certainty and clarity have become so valuable to us. Those tools, those that science, opinion,

have been weaponized and twisted too. And that's why it feels like the foundations of knowledge are crumbling, right? Because we seek knowledge, we seek increasingly evidence and certainty to support our position, and therefore those tools have been weaponized. This is a question for a guy who obviously makes his living on a post-secondary campus. So with that in mind, does being better educated give you more tools to deal with disinformation?

If you look at the research that's been done on this, the short answer is yes, right? And we have to be careful there, because there's a lot going on. These are correlation studies. Socioeconomics is relevant. And of course, of course, there's biases at play when defining what is misinformation and what is the truth. But in general, I think the answer is yes.

But we can have a more modest proposition. We also know that critical thinking skills matter. Styles of cognitive thinking matter. Media literacy matters. And there's been studies that have demonstrated that teaching those things, again, hard to study this well, makes a difference. And that's good news, right? That's good news because it means that we can teach things. Again, hard to study this well, makes a difference.

And that's good news, right? That's good news because it means that we can teach things. It is, but it isn't. Because, I mean, if there's one thing I guess we learned in the last national election in the United States is that, and I don't mean to generalize here, but I think I'm on solid ground when I say this, well, we have exit polls that show this, that people with less education tended to vote for Trump, people with more education voted for Harris. And as a result, we have this enormous cleavage in the United States, some of which may or

may not be coming to Canada. And as a result, the groups that you may feel you need to talk to in particular are not as interested in what you have to say. So what do you do about that? You're right about that. And let's start with, you know, even get, let's get even more dark. All of the tools that have often been suggested, you know, to be deployed, to fight the spread of misleading information, lies,

work best for the community that's willing to hear from it, their higher socioeconomic. So are those tools, the things that I advocate, just going to further polarize us, if you follow what I mean by that? And so that is problematic. But again, there are hints of good news. Teaching media literacy and science education

early in class, in education system. I wrote a piece where I advocated we should start in kindergarten. That's how soon we should. In countries like Sweden and Finland, they do that. And again, I'm gonna use this caveat again, hard to study it well, there are a lot of variables at play. It's suggested it works, it can make a difference

on a national level. Of course, of course, of course, the problem is some people in power may not want that to happen, because it's advantageous for their power base not to have people embrace critical thinking skills. You want to see what you looked like in 2017?

Yeah, sure. You've been on this program many times and here is you back in 2017. Sheldon, if you would. It's really interesting. If we went out on the street today and we asked people, do you trust science? Do you trust scientific facts? Most people will say, yeah, I do. And I trust scientists too.

But then if you start asking them about particular things, climate change, GMOs, organic food, vaccines, that trust starts to break down and they all have justifications for it. First of all, my compliments to your plastic surgeon. You look fantastic. That's number one. Number two, that was almost eight years ago.

If you talk to people on the street today, would it be the same or different? So I talk about this in the book. I think in general the answer is going to be yes. So if we went out on the street, ask 1,000 people, do you trust science? Most people will say yes. They're going to have a caveat.

I don't trust your science. I don't trust science from the pharmaceutical industry. But most, in the book I joke that the enlightenment is one. No one says my product has less science. They all say it has more science. But what has changed is people's perception of what science is, what is trustworthy science. We have seen, and there's been studies that have done

in both Canada and the United States and really around the world, this in general erosion in trust in science, right? In trust in scientific institutions. So that erosion is happening. Despite that, most people will say, depending on the survey that you look at, over 75% of people say they trust scientific institutions.

So the trust is still there, but it's eroding. And this is really, really important. That erosion is happening, though, very much along party lines. In the United States in particular, the erosion of trust is almost entirely, almost entirely on the right. And if I might, I think there's a really important historical context that has to be rolled out here. Because people say, oh, Tim, you're being partisan.

You know, that's just- Well, you're just following the facts. But, Steve, it's important to recognize that in the past, in the 70s, the distrust of science was on the left, right? It was on the left. It was the Vietnam War, Agent Orange, Watergate. So you had that distrust on the left, and now it's almost entirely, entirely on the right.

Is the right slash Republican distrust of science, does it flow from COVID or before that? I think it started to happen before that, but I think there was this view there wasn't a political advantage that could be obtained by leaning into distrust of scientific institutions and framing science, which of course isn't an institution. Science isn't an individual.

Science is a process. But framing science as an institution that can't be trusted, I think there was a view that there was political advantage to that narrative. And I think COVID really accelerated that. Science, look, science isn't perfect. Nothing's perfect.

Science isn't perfect. Science did make some mistakes during COVID. How much do you think the mistakes that science did make during COVID? Do we need masks? Do we not need masks? How many vaccines? Which types?

All this. How much of all that do you think contributed to the problem you're describing here? So I think it's complex. You're going to hate my answer. I think it's part of it. But more so, it's the weaponization of those mistakes.

And are they mistakes, right? Because science is messy, science is hard. It's always evolving, right? And it should be a badge of honor to change your mind based on the evolution of science. That is not the world we live in. It is not the, it's flip-flopping, right? The world we live in says, this is my position,

and nothing, come hell or high water, is going to change it. And worse, if you do change it, it's viewed as some kind of fault, or a frailty that you have. So in the book, I argue that we should all have scientific humility. And there's some research, again, to back up this idea that if you have that display scientific humility,

less likely to fall for misinformation, less likely to spread misinformation, more likely to be informed. And I invite people to make a list of things that you've changed your mind on based on the evolution of evidence, or even just modify it to your position. And my list is long, right?

And everyone's list should be long, because science is hard, and it's messy, and it's uncertain, and it's evolving. With COVID, was there less than ideal messaging early days? Yes. But we have to remember, we were in the middle of a pandemic, right? We were learning. First learn in a century.

Yeah, and in some situations, I was in the room, right? You know, I know the kind of conversations. People were doing the best they could do with the information that they had but the weaponization of You know of the masks is a good a good example I think has played a greater role in in the growth of distrust and evidence backs that up I believe that much of the distrust is the result of misinformation a spread of misinformation in order to create distrust to make room for these other

narratives. Can you build on that if you would? The point or the purpose behind the weaponization and misinformation of all of this ultimately is what? Well if you look at state actors, let's keep it simple. There's evidence that much of the misinformation around COVID came from state actors, or at least state actors contributed to it. The goal there, information chaos.

Let's just create polarization. If you are a different jurisdiction, a different country, you just want to create information chaos, polarization, create dysfunction, throw sand in the gears of your nemesis, and it works. Yes, but I guess I wonder, do people ever get tired of being played for fools? And I'll give you one example on this. You know Fox, I can't remember if you talk about this in the book or not, but Fox News was out there doing its worst about disinformation

and so on, while at the same time ensuring that every employee of Fox News got vaccinated in a timely fashion. Now that's just, I don't know, that's just evil. How do you get away with that? Why are we still falling for that? I mean, help us out here. People don't want their worldview to be disrupted.

So if they, you know, conspiracy theories are self-sealing. Right? If you live within a conspiracy theory, you can explain away anything. And that's, I think, what happens in these situations. There's interesting research that's gone on by people like Stephen Lewandowski, who does a lot of research in this space,

where he talks about the difference between facts speaking and beliefs speaking. And we live in the era of beliefs speaking. So facts speaking is that old school facts are tethered to evidence. Now there's beliefs speaking, where it's tethered to conviction, right? And you believe something if you believe the gist

of what's being said, right? So are immigrants eating cats and dogs? Maybe in your heart you know that's not true, but you believe the gist of it because it aligns with your political views. And again, this happens across the ideological spectrum here. I think it's important to highlight that. And we live in that era.

Someone like Tucker Carlson is a master of belief speaking. You say something with enough conviction, it feels true, even if there's no evidence to support the claim. And people like Stephen Lewandowski and others has been replicated by other scientists, has suggested that this is what's happening now. And unfortunately, Steven Lewandowski and others, it's been replicated by other scientists, has suggested that this is what's happening now. And unfortunately, it's very, very effective. And that's why entities like Fox News, I think, can get away with those sort of discrepancies,

those tensions. Is Steven Lewandowski and Corey Lewandowski, are they related? I don't think so. OK, just checking. Because that could be an awkward dinner time conversation. Health halos, you talk about those in the book. What are health halos? Well, I think health halos are a really good,

straightforward example of some of the themes in the book. So because our information environment is so chaotic, and because we crave certainty, and we want our day-to-day decisions to be easier and to be correct, there are phrases and ideas that are rolled out to fool us. And Health Halo classic example is the word natural, right? You throw the word natural on a product, and there's evidence to back this up by the way,

it seems more virtuous. It seems like you're doing what's right for yourself and for your family, maybe for your community. And there's many of them right there are things like non-gmo, organic, even locally grown right these are actually phrases that are used to make it feel like you're making the right decision quickly right you don't have to think about you know the facts actually say and we all do it you know. But is it BS at the end of the day? Sometimes it's complete BS, and sometimes, and often,

the science is just more complex than the health halo will lead you to believe. And I think locally grown is a good example of that. I mean, that sounds like a great idea. We shop at a farmer's market, but the reality is the science is messy behind that. Is it always better for the environment? Is it always better for the environment? Is it always better for the food?

Is it always better for the farmers around the world? It's a complex question, and slapping locally grown on it doesn't really do justice to the complexity. You famously captured a great deal of attention talking about Goop and Gwyneth Paltrow's products. And boy, you really had your moment on American television there, right? That went big time viral.

But that's women's health. I want to talk about men's health for a second here. What is now emerging in the realm of men's health that you can help us with? Yeah, I mean, it's incredible. You look back, you know, that 2017 clip, you know, I almost, you know, missed those simple days

of jade vagina eggs and now we have the knowledge economy collapsing. We have seen this fascinating shift from the wellness industry, largely not entirely, not entirely, but largely focused on women, and this is a multi-trillion dollar industry, right? We have seen this shift towards men, it's been called the manosphere.

And there are many layers to this. Part of it is political, right? Part of it is about health. And part of it is about success, being successful. And it has become very, very powerful. I mean, the manosphere, I think, it's going to sound like, again, hyperbole, but I think there's no doubt it had an impact on what happened in the US election. Oh, for sure. Indisputable.

And the messaging is very effective, and I think largely from a scientific perspective, right, from an evidence-based perspective, false. False. You know, being, you know, adhering to traditional masculine norms is not going to make you healthier or make you better or make you more successful. On the contrary, most of the evidence, again, hard to study well, correlational observational work, points in the complete opposite direction. Now, huge caveat here, look, if you enjoy traditional masculine norms, if that's the aesthetic you enjoy, fantastic. The point is there is no one rigid definition of how to be a man, but

increasingly, and by the way it's that pressure, that pressure to adhere to a rigid definition that I think does much of the harm, you know, much of the heavy lifting in the context of harms. The goal of course is to have a broader broader perspective. I want you to help us with some, let's just call it viewer feedback, because obviously we get a lot on this program and well Sheldon let's just bring these up if we can. Here's a couple of Google reviews. Here's one says the agenda stands out amongst all programs no doubt exclamation mark but then we got this too. I can't stand the bias on your show after tonight I can't stand the bias on your show. After tonight, I won't ever watch again.

This is fairly, well, I should ask, is this fairly representative of the state of online views nowadays? I think it is. One is accurate, by the way. Well, I mean, that was my next question, which is they both can't be true, can they? Yeah, so it's funny because one of the reasons I tackle,

so as you know in the book, I tackle the whole review culture, and I picked it's funny because one of the reasons I tackle, so as you know in the book, I tackle the whole review culture and I picked it in part because I thought, you know, the book has heavy moments in it, is the series, but I thought it was a good example of how these forces creep into our lives in ways that you may not realize. And online reviews, do you do anything in life

without checking an online review, whether you're buying an appliance or going to a movie or going to a restaurant or really, or picking a health professional, right? Everyone checks online reviews and the reality is, because they're so valuable to our lives, I think they move trillions of dollars, right? Of course they're distorted, Of course they're distorted.

Of course they're twisted. They're either fake, they're either incentivized, or all the usual cognitive biases that impact on it, I think this would be the case in those reviews, that impact the decisions we make as a result on the review. So you only put up a review if you are passionate about loving it or passionate about hating it. And that's exactly what we saw there. Follow up with the story about Shed, that restaurant, OK? Oh, yeah.

Because that's refu. It hits us where we live on this topic. Yeah, he was amazing, by the way. So there is the Shed in Douglas. You should think I would have this memorized. At one point, it was the number one restaurant reviewed in London, England. And think of the number of restaurants

and how fancy that market is. Number one, it was based all on fake reviews. It didn't even exist. It was a total prank to highlight how fake reviews can manipulate. The guy's hilarious, he's a comedian, he was getting all these calls, and I'm sorry, we're booked up,

that just made it more enticing. I want to go really bad now. It really highlights how reviews can shape our consuming behavior, our beliefs, and I touch on that too, it also has an impact on our own tastes, right? And one of the things I found fascinating at a personal level about reviews,

so, you know, Steve, I'm studying this for, you know, years. And I know how fake the reviews are and how manipulated they are, and I still check reviews. I still, do you? So, no, I don't. And the reason I don't is because, I mean, I understand what you're going for here, which is to say, I don't. And the reason I don't is because, I mean, I understand what you're going for here, which is to say, I don't know what makes

that person's opinion, whom I don't know, any more relevant than anybody else's opinion. So, no, I'm not gonna get sucked in and swayed by a bunch of stuff that I have no idea what it's based on or where it's from. Well, it's fascinating, with reviews, what you just said, I think, is, you know, how do I know who this person is?

And one of the reasons I think reviews are so powerful is they feel authentic. It feels real. It feels real, right? You know, it's the unfiltered truth. And the other thing is, it is this window into certainty and clarity that people crave. They crave, you know, that five-star system.

You see it everywhere. And so I think that's one of the other reasons people are drawn to to reviews one of my more philosophical softer recommendations in the in the book just builds on exactly what you just said like what you like you know don't don't let some you know alleged crowd tell you what you're supposed to like like what you like but we know about Russian bots and we know about fake reviews and we we know, I mean, even the least well-informed people understand that that kind of thing happens, and yet we still seem to be sucked in.

So how do we get out of being sucked in? We are sucked in, and as you know in the book, I actually, so I interviewed experts all over the world, scholars who have studied reviews and done empirical research on it, and the most skeptical people you can imagine about reviews, and I ask them if they still turn to reviews and they go, yeah, I do. So I think just recognizing that this exists is a step forward. I know that sounds like a simplistic thing to say but again, research backs this up.

Just being aware of all of these forces can make a difference in our lives. Now, you don't want to become a cynic, right? Because that's the other dangerous thing. So also know that there is good research out there. There is good content out there. Seek it out and find it. And it takes patience and pause and take a little bit of that frantic approach out of your life.

And I think it really can make a difference. Now that I think of it, there might be one exception to the rule, and that is movies. Because I know what reviewers say, and who I generally like, and who I generally don't agree with. So if I get a good review from somebody who I traditionally respect their views,

that is instructive in helping me decide what movies to see. So that's something, experts even recommend that, right? Find a voice that you trust, right, that resonates with you and listen to that. And that can be helpful. On an individual level, can you make some recommendations as to how we get out of this mess? So I've already touched on one of them.

You know, there's very interesting research about the power of the pause. So researchers like Gordon Pennecook, who used to be a Canadian scholar now is at Cornell, and David Rand at MIT, and this work has been replicated by other laboratories. This idea of just pausing, because our information environment is so

fast-paced and chaotic, and we do respond to our emotions, right? Often we don't read anything more than the headline. I think 74% of content on social media is pushed without even, you know, people don't even open the link, right, so it's this idea of pausing and reflecting on accuracy really can make a difference. And I know that sounds simplistic.

No, no, but there be no X slash Twitter if people paused. The reason X works is because people just fire off without even thinking. And so David Rand, I actually quote in the piece, this is a scholar from MIT, that's his recommendation. Just the power of the pause, right? Just reflect for a moment on accuracy, and it really can make a difference in people's lives.

And then the other thing I think is important, because I do talk about the degree to which science is being manipulated, recognize that that happens. Don't fall for the single study syndrome. Always think about what does the body of evidence say on this topic? Be patient. Let the science evolve before you let it sway your views.

And we've certainly seen the science being manipulated on so many big topics these days, from climate change to GMOs to vaccines. Always reflect on what the body of evidence actually says on a topic like that. And I think the body of evidence is a really powerful concept that people need to both understand, all of us understand and reflect on more. Let me ask one last question, which is you've written this book. I hate to tell you this, the kinds of people who are going to want to read this book are probably not the kinds of people who need to read this book.

So how do you get out of that echo chamber and get this message spread to people who probably need to hear it more than those who will read it. So getting out of echo chambers, I think, is also an incredibly important concept. And there is some good news out there. Studies tell us that if you can expose people to different perspectives, it does make a difference. Now, whether that difference sticks is another question.

People might, their opinions evolve. So it's not easy. It's not easy. And because it's not easy doesn't mean we shouldn't try. So I think we need to be creative. We need to work with artists, graphic artists. We have a project called Hashtag Science Up First that is aimed at social media platforms where we try to do exactly that, where we partner with different communities.

You know, we partner with indigenous communities, immigrant communities, with different professional groups in order to do exactly what you suggest, Steve. So I think we need to partner with the communities. And there are voices almost within any community that want to do better. They want to make sure that their decisions are evidence-based. And I hope in some small way we can do that. I think I always say the same thing every time you visit here, which is thank you for giving us so much to think about.

The certainty illusion, what you don't know and why it matters. Timothy Caulfield, thanks Tim. Thank you.