50 Popular Beliefs That People Think Are True

by Harrison, Guy P.

  Shermer argues that, just as it is with the theory of evolution, there is no one piece of evidence that proves the Holocaust happened. We know it happened through a “convergence of evidence.”

  “Deniers seem to think that if they can just find one tiny crack in the Holocaust structure, the entire edifice will come tumbling down,” Shermer explains. “This is the fundamental flaw in their reasoning. The Holocaust was not a single event. The Holocaust was thousands of events in tens of thousands of places, and is proven by millions of bits of data that converge on one conclusion. The Holocaust cannot be disproved by minor errors or inconsistencies here and there, for the simple reason that it was never proved by these lone bits of data in the first place.”7

  It makes sense to side with the evidence, especially when there is so much of it. In this case, it's overwhelming: There are blueprints of crematoria and gas chambers; damning documents; numerous quotes from Nazi leaders about exterminating Jews; thousands of photographs; and, most important of all, we have thousands of chilling testimonies from survivors and those who lost family members. We also have testimonies from some of the killers themselves. The Holocaust happened.

  “My wife is Jewish, so I know from personal experience the loss of family members who simply disappeared and cannot be found,” said historian Nick Wynne. “It has a profound effect on surviving family members. Dwight Eisenhower knew that the world would have a hard time believing the Holocaust happened, so he ordered that the death camps be filmed for posterity and to disprove the deniers. Historians should be prepared to deal with the deniers by accumulating as much information as possible. Should they be silenced? No, everyone has the right to believe and say what they want—even if they're wrong! That's the essence of freedom of speech.”8

  As repugnant and just plain wrong as Holocaust deniers may be, Wynne is correct. Attempting to legally muzzle them is not the solution. People should have the right to believe and say incorrect and offensive things. The best way to respond to Holocaust deniers is not with subpoenas and indictments but with education and evidence-based rebuttals. Dragging deniers into courtrooms and making public spectacles of them—as was done in Canada with Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel—rewards their provocations by giving them undeserved relevance and an aura of importance. It is the claims themselves, not the people who make them, that need to be defeated. This can only be done by slaying the lies and distortions with superior evidence and personal testimonies—two things the Holocaust has plenty of.

  GO DEEPER…

  Gilbert, Martin. The Holocaust: A History of the Jews of Europe during the Second World War. New York: Holt Paperbacks, 1987.

  Keegan, John. The Second World War. New York: Penguin, 2005.

  Lipstadt, Deborah. Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory. New York: Plume, 1994.

  Posner, Gerald. Mengele: The Complete Story. Lanham, MD: Cooper Square Press, 2000.

  Shermer, Michael, and Alex Grobman. Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It? Berkley: University of California Press, 2009.

  I believe the biggest problem to solving global warming is the role of money in politics, the undue sway of special interests…. Policy decisions are being deliberated every day by those without full knowledge of the science, and often with intentional misinformation spawned by special interests.

  —James Hansen, Storms of My Grandchildren

  I am convinced that global warming is real and that our industrialized civilization is the cause or at least a key contributing factor. I don't believe it will bring about our extinction or the total collapse of civilization, but I do think it will be devastating for some and costly for all one way or another. I could be wrong, of course, but currently this seems to be the most sensible position one can hold, based on what I have read and heard over the last thirty years from scientists who are directly involved in researching this issue. But the reality of global warming is not what this chapter is about. For the moment, let's not concern ourselves with whether or not it's a real phenomenon. Instead, let's deal with how illogically and irresponsibly politicians, the news media, and the general public have dealt with the global warming issue to date.

  Being a liberal or a conservative, Democrat or Republican, should not have anything to do with how one thinks about whether or not global warming is real. This is a real-world issue with potentially dire consequences for billions of people. Inexcusably, however, global warming has been something that most people assess first and foremost in terms of political tribe affiliation. This is profoundly irresponsible. It makes no sense to draw conclusions about scientific evidence and ideas based on whether it is liberal or conservative politicians who first side with the scientists who bring it to light. Shouldn't reality and responsibility to the world be the priority? Liberals should be skeptical of global warming and analyze it honestly and intelligently like anyone else might. And conservatives should have sense enough to get their science from scientists rather than from politicians. If liberals are convinced of global warming's legitimacy, then they should be most concerned about promoting science and defending scientists against unreasonable attacks on their credibility, not toeing the party line in a childish political skirmish. Conservatives should be smart enough to know that politicians with law degrees and science illiterates who happen to have their own radio and TV shows should not be anyone's go-to source on serious science matters. Earth's climate potentially impacts all life everywhere—including conservatives and liberals alike. Clearly a rapidly changing global climate is more important than picking candidate A or candidate B in the next election. This is about figuring out what is happening with our climate and what is coming in our collective future. Don't you think this is one issue that should rise above childish playground politics? After all, climate and greenhouse gas emissions are not political. They are not liberal or conservative. Our reactions to them through new legislation and changed behavior can be political, of course, but the climate and gases themselves are not.

  Polls have confirmed the obvious repeatedly: For most Americans, political slant strongly influences how they think about global warming. A recent survey found that 73 percent of Democrats believe greenhouse gas emissions cause global warming, but only 28 percent of Republicans believe it.1 Again, this chapter is not debating whether global warming is real and human-caused. It's about people deciding how they feel about this important science issue based, not on science, but on shallow politics. Even if we assume here that global warming is real, as I believe, Democrats who accept it only because their political leaders do are not much better than Republicans who reject it because of their leaders. It sounds obvious, but millions just don't get it so it bears repeating: people should rely on science when assessing the validity of scientific issues, not politics.

  Sadly, people in general, regardless of political affiliation, are losing trust in the scientific consensus on global warming. It seems that the illogical and stubborn nature of this relentless debate seems to have eroded public trust in science overall to the point that the level of understanding and acceptance of what most scientists say about global warming has fallen among Democrats, Republicans, and independent voters across the board in recent years.2 It appears that it's not just the Republican or conservative perspective that is compelling to people, the “don't bother listening to scientists” mantra has traction everywhere in America. Right or wrong, it would not be so depressing if people were rejecting global warming after thinking about it independently, objectively, and rationally. But that's not what is happening. They are being bludgeoned into either conformity or apathy by the whirlwind of political shouting and antiscience rhetoric.

  There are many factors one could blame for the tragic politicization and intellectual corruption of an important scientific issue, but I point to just one—Al Gore. The former vice president was the wrong man at the wrong time. Despite whatever good intentions he may have had, Gore as the point man for global war
ming crippled the issue from the start due to his prominent status over on one half of the playpen of American politics. He was a politician, first and foremost, so he was divisive and suspicious to millions before he even said one word on the issue. Truth, reality, and science would never be allowed to overshadow the view that he was a Democrat and therefore any agenda he pushed was seen by millions as Democratic and not Republican. So, of course, the global and borderless challenge of global warming immediately morphed into a partisan shouting match based on political allegiance rather than science. It's probably not fair to fault Gore for this. It's unlikely that he could have foreseen his negative impact on this issue. One could also argue that he at least raised awareness, a good thing. But to the degree that the awareness he raised has been largely drowned out by the most immature political babbling and squabbling imaginable, I don't see his efforts as a net gain. If the global-warming issue had been pushed early on by a more neutral crusader, I believe we would be in a better place right now.

  In the minds of many Americans, Al Gore is a running joke. To them he is the inventor of both the Internet and global warming, a profit-and ego-obsessed man who has promoted history's greatest hoax. It's clear how many people think: If you are a conservative and don't like Gore, then you can't possibly believe in his issue of global warming. Because of Gore's role as poster boy, climate change became just another political piñata for the children who run America to take turns whacking. It's not about scientists trying to warn us, some believe. It's about a Democrat trying to sell us something bogus for his own gain. Meanwhile, of course, the world keeps warming.

  The truth, of course, is that Gore did not invent or discover global warming. He didn't even contribute any key research. He is a nonscientist who seized an issue that he apparently felt was important and worth pushing. Perhaps he also believed that it would benefit him politically to do this. He is a politician, after all. Given the way this has played out over the last couple decades, it seems clear to me that it would have been better if Gore had never become the public face of global warming. That role should have gone to a key scientist or key scientists who were immersed in the problem. After all, they are the people who understand it better than anyone and they are not politicians first and foremost. This is not to say that scientists didn't try to tell the world. I can recall reading about global warming as far back as the 1980s. But most people don't follow science news. It took Gore's involvement to put it on the radar and get the yelling started, but that meant little listening and less thinking would follow. Perhaps if the general public was less concerned with celebrity affairs and sports results and more attentive when it comes to important science news, people would have been aware of the global-warming issue long before it was attached to a political figure that half of America would never trust.

  Here's a scenario to consider: What if a polarizing politician who happened to be a conservative, say George W. Bush or Sarah Palin, had made global warming their pet issue? What if that conservative politician produced and starred in an Oscar-winning documentary and also pushed hard for related legislation and lifestyle changes? Given the nature of current American politics, is there any doubt that the poll figures would likely be reversed? A majority of Republicans would probably believe in global warming and most Democrats might deny it. Only the stubborn refusal to respect science likely would be the same.

  To be clear, the problem here is not the arguing itself. Debate is healthy. Being skeptical and asking questions about something as important as climate change is a good thing. It should be challenged and questioned—everything should be challenged and questioned. But it's not the science that is being debated in this case. It's been a case of confirmation bias runing amok. Most people dismiss everything about global warming that contradicts their political position and accept everything that supports it. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck are not climate science experts—not even close—so it makes no sense that they should be trusted as leading minds on this issue by millions of Americans. Regardless of political party, everyone should be paying attention to what credible scientists are saying. It's really not that difficult: expert opinion should be sought from experts. Relying on politicians who are shackled one way or the other by their tribe is a foolhardy way to go about figuring out a science issue. Their goal on most days is to defend and promote their position—whether it's right or wrong. It's even worse to rely on professional rabble rousers on radio and TV for the final word on important scientific matters. Have no doubts, their primary concern is advertising revenue, certainly not scientific accuracy or even the state of our planet. They succeed through controversy, mistrust, and division. They are not scientists. They do not do science. They do not know science. Scientists know science.

  GO DEEPER…

  Books

  Hansen, James. Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth about the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity. New York: Bloomsbury, 2010.

  Mooney, Chris, and Sheril Kirshenbaum. Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future. New York: Basic Books, 2009.

  Pierce, Charles P. Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free. New York: Anchor, 2010.

  Schmidt, Gavin, and Joshua Wolfe. Climate Change: Picturing the Science. New York: W. W. Norton, 2009.

  Other Sources

  Climate Central, www.climatecentral.org.

  For every five hours of cable news, one minute is devoted to science.

  —Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum,

  Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy

  Threatens Our Future

  The one function that TV news performs very well is that when there is no news, we give it to you with the same emphasis as if there were.

  —David Brinkley

  Whom the gods would destroy, they first give TV.

  —Arthur C. Clarke, Voices from the Sky

  I am deeply conflicted when it comes to today's television news media. Ask me what I think of it and I'm likely to answer that it's wonderful—but also terrible. It's invaluable—yet mostly a waste of time. TV news is necessary for keeping people informed—and a primary reason so many people are astonishingly ignorant. It's crucial to a healthy democracy—but also the cause of so many voters being seduced by idiot candidates.

  I preach to my children that it is important to be aware of current events and follow the news every day. Read newspapers and watch TV news, I say. The more news, the better, I tell them. But, like all parents, I'm a hypocrite. Do as I say, not as I do. Over the years, my mind has migrated away from television news. It's obviously more about entertainment, excitement, and fear than news and information. The goal of cable news executives is not to make me an informed citizen of Earth. Their mission is to tickle the dark reptilian depths of my brain and hook me so that they can then barter with my soul for advertising revenue. I suppose I could have spent the summer of 2011 keeping up with the Casey Anthony murder trial that seemed to captivate most of America. But I chose instead to use that time hanging out with my kids, reading, writing, and doing other things I felt were a more valuable use of my time. Isn't it fitting, by the way, that in the same month ABC announced the cancellation of the fictional soap operas One Life to Live and All My Children, news departments were serving up the nonfictional soap opera of a troubled mother charged with killing her child? Why pay actors and screenwriters when you can just point cameras at human train wrecks and rake in the money? It's also curious that so much attention was given to the Anthony case—centering on the death of one child—considering the fact that during the forty-two-day trial more than one million children under the age of five died in the developing world from malnutrition and preventable diseases. How much coverage of those child deaths did you see during the summer of 2011?

  In the month of July 2011 alone, cable news and major network news covered the US government turmoil over raising the debt ceiling. While it was an important story, I would
estimate that at least 90 percent of what aired was meaningless back-and-forth babbling between party loyalists that contributed nothing to understanding the issues or following the progress of the story. I wonder how many American TV news viewers were aware that in that same month of July nearly thirty thousand Somali children died in the worst famine East Africa had seen in twenty years.

  These days I spend the bulk of my daily allotted “news download time” reading science magazines and visiting science news websites. I care about the world and sincerely want to know what is going on, but not so much that I'm willing to sit through news roundups that are mostly violent crimes, gossipy nonsense about celebrities, and political soundbites crafted for sixth-grade-level comprehension. There was a time when I thought that in addition to reading a daily newspaper it was my obligation as a thoughtful person to watch a lot of television news. I still like the idea that TV news is there and I do have it on most days as background noise when I'm shaving or whatever, but I can't stomach very much of it in single sittings anymore.

  Somewhere along the way I realized that my life was not being enhanced by watching metrosexual androids and former beauty queens fake concern while reporting on the deranged giraffe that bit off the nose of some tourist at the zoo earlier today. “Exclusive analysis from our Beverly Hills plastic surgeon correspondent after the break!” The reporting on environment, health, and science topics is almost always too shallow and designed to scare rather than educate. “Which is more dangerous, the flu or the flu vaccine? A concerned soccer mom weighs in on tonight's ‘Health Zone' report.” And many of the news packages are just plain pointless by any reasonable standard. “Should pets have their own Facebook accounts? Viewer tweets shed light on the controversy, next!” Nor am I necessarily better informed on important political issues after watching an endless parade of political hacks defend their respective parties at all costs, with little or no thought given to truth, reason, or what might be best for society. “Tune in at eleven! A former Republican campaign strategist and a former Democratic campaign strategist will tell us which party they think is doing the best job for America.” I also don't have time for all those professional pollsters who specialize in telling me what I am likely to think about things I don't care about. “In this segment of ‘News Watch' we'll look at the new survey that has everyone talking. It turns out that 37 percent of Americans think members of Congress are satisfied with the public's perception of Congress.” Politics in general is treated as a shallow sports competition by television news, at the expense of sensible priorities and truth. For example, both sides of an issue are usually given equal amounts of time and respect—no matter if one side is completely illogical, untrue and in opposition to scientific fact. “This morning on Wake Up AM we'll hear from two senators as they square off on an important and contentious issue: Does the Earth revolve around the Sun or vice versa?”