Ologies with Alie Ward - Agnotology (WILLFUL IGNORANCE) Encore with Dr. Robert Proctor

Episode Date: February 12, 2025

Yes, there is an -ology for that. And yes, we’re airing this episode -– with a ton of 2025 updates -– because it’s never felt more relevant. Dr. Robert Proctor is a Stanford professor of the History of Science and co-edited the book “Agnotology: The Making & Unmaking of Ignorance,” having coined the word 30 years ago. We chat about everything from tobacco marketing, to the sugar lobby, to racial injustice, horse vision, the psychology of the Flat Earther movement, which countries have the highest rates of climate denial, empathy, how to navigate difficult conversations and why it's critical to dismantle the systems of willful ignorance, starting locally. Dr. Robert Proctor’s book: "Agnotology: The Making and Unmaking of Ignorance"His 2021 book: Science and the Production of Ignorance: When the Quest for Knowledge Is Thwarted.Donations in Dr. Proctor’s name went to: SavingBlackLives.org and the Public Health Advocacy InstituteAn additional donation went to The National Black Law Students AssociationMore episode sources and linksSmologies (short, classroom-safe) episodesOther episodes you may enjoy: Eschatology (THE APOCALYPSE)Sponsors of OlogiesTranscripts and bleeped episodesBecome a patron of Ologies for as little as a buck a monthOlogiesMerch.com has hats, shirts, hoodies, totes!Follow Ologies on Instagram and BlueskyFollow Alie Ward on Instagram and TikTokEditing by Steven Ray Morris and Jarrett Sleeper of Mindjam MediaEncore editing by Jake Chaffee and Mercedes Maitland of Maitland Audio ProductionsAdditional encore producing by Mercedes MaitlandManaging Director: Susan HaleScheduling Producer: Noel DilworthTranscripts by Aveline Malek Website by Kelly R. DwyerTheme song by Nick Thorburn

Oh hey, it's the tea bag camped out in your garbage disposal. Allie Ward, here we are. It's February 2025. We got a fresh, shiny new year. Now, this is an updated encore. So we have gone through meticulously and added updated asides, extra asides, more references of articles, and even some news from the last few weeks for you. So you can please pass it on to everyone in the world because today we are exploring the topic of not just ignorance but willful ignorance, intentional misinformation, doubt, controversy, how populations can willingly swallow ladlefuls of bullshit as if it's the truth. But before we examine our own lingering denseness, let's thank the folks at patreon.com

slash ologies for all their great questions they submitted and for supporting the show for as little as a dollar a month YouTube can join if you'd like. Thank you to everyone who subscribes and rates and of course reviews to keep the show up in the charts and this week's hot pick from just a few days ago is from help H-L-P-P-P, who wrote, thanks, Handsome, heard from another podcast and hooked. Really enjoy. Passing on to friends. Help. Handsome is a compliment I will take. And everyone who left reviews, I read them all. I love them all.

Thank you so much. Okay, onto this 2025 update to agnotology. We're gonna get into it. Agno comes from the Greek for unknown. And according to the originator of the word agnotology, it is the study of ignorance and it seeks to answer why we don't know what we don't know. And the person who coined the phrase, I'm sure you're like, was it a long dead philosopher? Was it a quippy war nurse? Was it a child? Why is beyond our years? Nope, it's our guest today.

That is correct. The biggest cheese in the agnotology world is here to talk to you. And he edited the book, Agnotology, The Making and Unmaking of Ignorance. And approximately 10 million of you have tweeted and emailed me begging to have him on. He's been on my list for years. So this was a huge get to have him sit down

during a pandemic and chat via computer. He got his bachelor's degree in biology and then went to Harvard University to get his master's and his PhD in the history of science. He is now a professor at Stanford University teaching the history of science. And I'm going to warn you up top, if you do not enjoy political discourse or scientific facts versus religious mythology or how industry favors profits over health or the topic of equity for marginalized groups this episode may not be for you or rather it might be perfect for you

we're living in very uncomfortable very polarized scary times in so many ways we've got a lot of decisions being made that will impact generations. We've seen a rise in incredibly alarming ideologies and gestures. A lot of folks not talking to certain family members. Shit is fucked. And it pains me to see the divides because I feel like there's so much at place psychologically underneath these sometimes violent differences of opinion. So we get into all of that. And I was very curious and excited to talk it out with someone who studies ignorance and the comfort of ignorance for a living, agnotologist Dr. Robert Proctor. I, everyone has told me I need to hunt you down to talk about what you study. And you

are, technically speaking, an agnatologist? I guess so. Yeah, that's one of the things I do. I do a lot of different things. My title is I'm professor of the history of science at Stanford University where I'm also a professor by courtesy of pulmonary medicine. But I work on a lot of different things, including the history of ignorance. And you studied also the history of science. How did it dovetail into the history of ignorance? At what point did a light bulb go off and you thought,

oh, I wanna study that? Well, I was always interested in puzzles and mysteries and illusions, even from being a kid. I remember in high school trying to figure out the moon illusion. Why does the moon appear large on the horizon? And I basically I think figured it out. We live in a low dome cosmology where the sky we figure is about two or three miles

high and the horizon is about two or three miles high and the horizon is about 10 or 20 miles high. So it makes sense that if something appears the same above you and on the horizon, it will actually in effect create an illusion of being much larger on the horizon. So that's kind of the popular cosmology we live in because if a bird is overhead, it's closer if it's on the horizon, it's farther. And we normalize that and that creates the moon illusion. So I was always interested in puzzles and, you know, Martin Gardner type of mysteries. Oh, and for more on those moon illusions, see the Selenology episode with Raquel Nuno.

Also side note, Martin Gardner was a popular and beloved mathematics columnist. Yeah, he made math cool. And he was a founder of the skeptics movement, starting way back with his early 1950s book, Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. So this guy was the original myth buster, the founder of the debunking of Flim Flemary. And I remember noticing, learning things that I thought were true that turned out not to be true. I remember as a kid thinking that we would eat chicken hearts. I grew up in

South Texas and we would eat chicken hearts. So I thought my heart was the size of a chicken heart. Still when I think of my heart, I kind of think of like a little tiny chicken heart. And I remember thinking that every country was the same size and the same shape and that I remember puzzling how can it be that a refrigerator is hot at the back and that it's the heat at the back that makes the cold in the front. One day we're going to figure this out in a thermotechnology episode for y'all, I promise. That day is not today. You know, so I was a curious child and when I went off to graduate school after majoring in biology and chemistry, I didn't know what I wanted to do.

And I started noticing that basically what I was supposed to learn was all of this great science, Darwin and Einstein and the double helix and I thought, you know, well, what about, you know, the things people don't know and what about all the people who don't believe in evolution and don't understand cosmology, what about them? And that was uninteresting to my Harvard professors. And so I thought, you know, hey, wait a minute, a lot of people don't believe evolution, why don't we study them? And so that's kind of one of the things that got me going on ignorance. And what about the word itself, agnotology? Where did that come from? I started, I got involved with some radical science groups at Harvard University where I was studying with

Stephen Jay Gould. Stephen Jay Gould, side note, was known as someone who challenged the scientific theories he found to be rooted in racism among studying a lot of other things. So this work toward dismantling misinformation goes way back. And we were studying things like how the chemical industry lies about chemicals and how the tobacco industry lies about cigarettes and the sugar industry has its own set of deceptions. And so I was saying, you know, this is kind of a big deal. You know, Harvard was taking all this money from the sugar industry and creating ignorance and I could see it around me and I said, you know, we need a word for the creation of ignorance.

There's something called epistemology, which is the study of knowledge, how we know what we know, what are the methods, empiricism, rationalism, you know, the study of knowledge, how we know what we know, what are the methods, empiricism, rationalism, you know, the sources of knowledge. That was heavily studied and what I noticed is everyone was ignoring ignorance. He says this was salient to him because he comes from the deep south and his beliefs didn't match those of a lot of his relatives. Again, it was sort of like, what about them? And what about these big corporations lying about tobacco or lying about chemicals? And so, I said, well, we need a word.

And so, this was in the early 1990s, I was writing a book on cancer. I'd already written a book on Nazi medicine because that's another thing I write about, Nazi science. But I was writing a book on Nazi medicine because that's another thing I write about, Nazi science. But I was writing a book on what causes cancer and I needed a word for all of these efforts to create ignorance. And so, I asked a linguist friend of mine, a brilliant linguist by the name of Ian Boll and he came up with agnotology. And originally, we spelled it differently. It was AGNA, A, and agnatology. And we got protests from the people who study jawless fish, which is agnathology. And so, I changed it to AGNO. So there's a cognate with agnostic and that sort of thing.

So that was sort of how it came up. I needed a word to describe the deliberate production of ignorance, the kind of things we now associate with climate denial or fear of vaccines or you know, the denial of the HIV etiology of AIDS, things like that. And what is the difference between creating willful ignorance and propaganda? Is there a difference or is propaganda just another word for it? Well, they're slightly different. Both involve deception but not necessarily and not in every case. For example, I think the Nazis really believed their own propaganda. In other words, propaganda is a kind of like an extreme word for education and it's bad if it's bad education, it's good if it's good education, it at least used to be.

And so, you can believe your own propaganda but agnatology is maybe a little more subtle because the tobacco industry, they knew that cigarettes cause cancer and their whole goal was to create ignorance, to stave off people learning the truth by creating doubt, by throwing up a smoke screen, by throwing sand in the gears. Playing tag with the waves, a refreshing way to take a walk at the beach. How can you add to it? With a menthol cigarette. And they were able to instrumentalize science by doing that. So, by funding genetics, by funding the study of viruses, they created all these blind alleys and false etiologies for

disease. So, it's a much more diabolical thing. Propaganda I think of as more ham-handed. It's just brainwashing really. Whereas the tobacco industry was much more clever in creating doubt by emphasizing uncertainty. And they become really engines of uncertainty by saying there's two sides to every question There are two sides to a story You know, there's so they set up the whole tobacco Institute to promote these Non tobacco causes of cancer. It's a kind of giant misdirection campaign and that's much more subtle than just the You know browbe brow beating of propaganda.

Yeah. My mom told me a story that when she was trying to lose some weight after her first baby in the early 70s that her obstetrician recommended just taking up smoking. You know, that's I'm so glad you brought that up because until the 1980s, doctors were more likely to recommend that pregnant women smoke than to recommend against it. It was called the smaller babies theory and the tobacco industry ran with it. They funded the people pushing for this theory. The theory was that yes, it makes a smaller baby if you smoke, but they're just as healthy and it's more pleasant to just have this nice small baby and so I've talked to several women whose doctors told them to take up smoking during pregnancy. Again,

that was part of that whole you know the sunny side of nicotine that was pushed by the tobacco industry. Just a quick side note, in 1937 Philip Morris, tobacco giant, ran an ad in the Saturday Evening Post depicting a child bellhop offering up a silver platter of cigarettes with the information, when smokers changed to Philip Morris, every case of irritation of the nose and throat caused by smoking cleared completely or definitely improved. Then there are TV gems too. Time out for many men of medicine usually means just long enough to enjoy a cigarette.

So as an agnatologist, he clearly covers smoking, but his book also includes chapters on military operations and clitoral orgasms, issues with indigenous paleontology, racial ignorance and injustice, and of course, commerce. What are some of the other historical, especially in America, campaigns of doubt and ignorance that have kind of been waged on our collective intelligence? Well, there's so many. The in Washington, DC, there's 1,500 trade associations. The Beer Institute, the Sugar Institute, the Methyl Butyl Ether Task Force, the Salt Institute. Basically, every product that might cause harm

has an institute or a trade association designed to diminish that harm or to cast out on that harm. So there are basically every thing that causes harm, whether that be asbestos or food dyes or Coca-Cola through the beverage council or whatever it's called. There are these organizations whose job it is to rescue products. And some of the more dramatic ones are things like the Lead Institute, which years ago going back into the 20s, 30s, 40s, they would promote lead

and cast doubts on the hazards of lead. And the Asbestos Information Association did the same thing. The Calorie Control Council in Coca-Cola was funding some of these things trying to rescue the reputation of sugar. And these things often were interrelated. So the Sugar Research Foundation president in the early 1950s actually goes to work for the tobacco industry saying that he could use the same techniques that they'd used to rescue the reputation of sugar to rescue the safety of tobacco. So there's an interlocking. There are even trade associations of trade associations. In other words,

there are whole buildings. I remember one I think it was in Atlanta where there's a whole building full of these trade associations and they share tricks and it's a little bit like that great scene in Thank You for Smoking where there's the gun lobby and what is it? Sugar or tobacco. We call ourselves the Mod Squad, M.O.D., merchants of death. We're lobbyists for the tobacco, alcohol and firearms industries. How many alcohol related deaths a year? Well, that's what 270 a day.

A tragedy. So these groups sometimes even work together as engines of. Of uncertainty, engines of of ignorance. And does that change for you? engines of uncertainty, engines of ignorance. And does that change for you, I imagine, how you just live your day-to-day life? Do you kind of see things with like an infrared vision that maybe other people don't,

like when you walk down the soda aisle in your store or see flashes on social media or the news? Well, sure. Yeah, you always wanna know who's funding it. I remember I had an aunt who worked for, I think it was some kind of dairy council or chicken council herself, even in my own family. And there was an issue on the ballot

about whether to require a certain minimum square footage for chickens, you know? And I remember her raising this to her and she said, oh, chickens hate to run free, you know, they'll just peck themselves to death. And so she had kind of been bought in, had sort of bought into this mythology of, you know, chickens actually like their confinement. So I see it all the time. Yeah. See, the oft cited 2015 study put out by the Coalition for Sustainable Egg Supply. They're

like, trust us, man. These chickens love cages the size of a shoebox. It's cozy as hell, man. Actually, bad news. Cage-free hens do not typically spend their days roaming rolling green hills though. They're not out there chasing grasshoppers, singing Joni Mitchell songs into the golden horizon. Cage free just means that they kind of hang out in a big warehouse, pooping on each other. Forgive me of robbing anyone of that willful ignorance. I had cage free eggs for breakfast. And what do you think the difference is between

just straight up ignorance of not being exposed to something versus willful ignorance when you maybe have an inkling that you perhaps could be wrong about something but you just don't want to believe it. Where does denial fit into that? Oh, yeah, denial is key. There's all kinds of ignorance. There's what I call native ignorance.

We all start off, you know, as embryos, we're ignorant, right? And we have to come, each one of us comes into the world innocent and not knowing everything we know we have to learn. And so all of us have a kind of innocent ignorance. And then our very lives as creatures, this has a lot to do with evolution because we evolved as predators.

We have the forward-looking eyes of the predator which means we are highly focused. And what highly focused means we ignore almost everything. So, we have the focus of the predator and not the eternal watchfulness of prey. A horse sees 360 but nothing in particular. They're on the watch for everything but they don't focus on any one thing and the biology of that is deep in our neural circuits. At this moment, I felt embarrassed for Robert because he clearly went 180 degrees. Because you know how people will say, she changed her mind and did a 360 but you're like, well, technically that just means that they came full circle I think you mean 180 and I looked it up and it read horses have a range of vision of about

350 degrees What so he was totally right horses can see almost everything around them I was ignorant of this they could pretty much see everything but their own butts Also, their eye anatomy involves something called a nervous tunic, which sounds like something I would wear in a nightmare of me giving a TED Talk. Anyway, human eyesight is more literally straightforward. We have a fovea which concentrates our perception,

and that's very different from a prey like a deer. And so even in our biology, it means that we have this intensive focus and we have to ignore everything. I mean, if you think about it, if you saw everything at once, you could see nothing. Or if you remembered everything you've ever known, you would also know nothing. So a big part of learning is forgetting. A big part of focus is inattention. You can't focus without defocusing at the very same time on most things that are around you. So that's...

2025, me here. So since this episode aired, we have put out a three-part ADHD episode series that will either change your life or maybe the life of someone in your life. It's linked in the show notes. It's a banger. Okay, cool. So that's another aspect of agnotology is actually looking at the creation of ignorance even in the non-human animal world. So the reason that deer have white bellies is that's how they create themselves as a non-object. All objects in the world have a shadow on the bottom. And if you're prey, you create a white underbelly to dissolve yourself as an object into the surrounding. So that's a form of ignorance

creation or creating the invisibility or camouflage. And many animals do that. So as long as there's been predation, there's been camouflage. And that's a kind of way of making yourself invisible. So next time you see a deer or a frog or a lizard, just feel free to say, that's called counter shading. And then if you want, you can high five yourself. And what about what is, say, happening on a nationwide level

the last few years in particular? Do you have to use maps at all to study higher levels, maybe, of willful ignorance? Or how do you parse out who is maybe more susceptible to believing certain things? Yeah, no, it's true. There's a geography of ignorance. So while it's true that basically everything that has been known has been forgotten, it's also true that many of the things that have been forgotten are known to some people and in a way that's also true that many of the things that have been forgotten are known

to some people and in a way that's what the whole field of history is, is to recover lost knowledge. But education is very selective, right? People are well educated, they're poorly educated. There's a big geography of knowledge and humorous deal with this very well. I remember Jay Leno, the comedian, used to do what he called jaywalking and he would ask people, how many moons does the earth have? What is our galaxy called? I am. It's also a candy bar.

Mars. I mean, it was kind of one of those who's buried in Grant's tomb kind of questions. But a lot of people don't know a lot of things and that's one of the things I actually do in my classes is I do a kind of what I call an agnotology survey where I, you know, ask people something else that's really how old is the earth? And it's surprising. I remember when I did this at Harvard for the undergraduates, it turned out about 15% of the biology majors at Harvard were creationists. I thought the

world was 6,000 years old. So, in other words, I developed what I call agnometrics, the measurement of ignorance. And there's lots of techniques for studying ignorance and surveys you can do and Yeah, it's cool Agnometrics by the way, isn't the only great word that you're gonna learn today also consider agno genesis Which is creating doubt for nefarious purposes or agnometric generators, which are the forces nefarious purposes or agnometric generators, which are the forces generating the doubt. Now, why do some opinions seem so regional? What creates factors that are agnogeographical, which is a word that I just made up? Is there something about perhaps the geography of being near a port city or a body of water that exposes people to say different cultures or different

types of people? Yeah, that historically has been true. That's why a lot of the great early empires and intellectual centers are built on maritime commercial centers. You think of the ancient Greeks trading amongst the city-states or you think of the river cultures either in Mesoamerica or ancient China. So trade, that's one of the old theories of actually the rise of modern science is that it's deeply connected with cosmopolitan trade. And so there definitely is something to isolation and the monkish life, you might say, that's not conducive to intellectual discovery. Intellectual discovery involves a kind of mixing

of ideas and that allows you to see yourself as a parochial agent. Oh, P.S. A parochial agent is someone who's narrow-minded or doesn't know a lot, which is a humbling thing to have to Google. But it certainly is a, that's part of the need is to, you know, to get rid of parochialism, to ask why are we the way we are? You know, that's kind of the undergraduate experience. And what about social media or just the democratization of information in the digital age? Do you think that we're getting more brainwashed more quickly? Or are we finally getting

exposure to voices that have been systemically oppressed for a long time through through large media channels? I'm learning a lot more about just how to word things and how to include people. But at the same time, it seems like we're distracted by stupid stuff. Richard No, for sure. I think we live in the golden age of ignorance. Ignorance spreads at the speed of light now and with the rise of conspiracy theories, with the conspiracy theories, with the rise of denial campaigns, with the siloing of people into reinforcing like communities through Facebook or whatever. It's easy to find, you know, self-reinforcing bubble worlds and that's a huge problem now. There's also the kind of the flattening of data and source, the sheer flatness of an

iPhone if you're getting information off that or a laptop. It doesn't discriminate by quality. And so, that democratization has also been a kind of a dumbing down, I think, a lot of media. And it's very easy to circulate. If everyone can pop off anything They want on on Twitter and that's all you read. There's no quality control there. So that that is a big problem. Mm-hmm Do you remember Twitter?

We were so young since this episode first aired Twitter is now X Having been purchased by Emerald Mine Air and richest person in the world Elon Musk and other media forces who control the information kind of making its way to your brain are the founders of Metta and Google execs, the TikTok top brass, the one-time book retailer and now newspaper owner Jeff Bezos, and others who prominently attended the last presidential inauguration and are holding some critical positions in the government. Also since this episode was recorded, we have a new friend in our pocket, a little

chat GPT and other artificial intelligence services. And for this, I wanted to see what AI had to say about me, so I googled myself and I followed the prompt, whatever happened to Ali Ward, which was the most humbling thing I have ever read. but the AI overview then confidently listed the recent removal of my thyroid as this ongoing health issue, and my thyroid, which is stationed faithfully still in my throat, was insulted and frankly pissed at this misinformation. I have a thyroid, but if I didn't know me, I might assume that that bullshit was factual. It was right in the AI overview. Isn't that vetted?

No. And to prove also that this update is fresh, just yesterday, February 10th, 2025, a paper came out in the journal Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, and it was titled Turning Right, an Experimental Study on the Political Value Shift in Large Language Models. And it found that ChatGPT's social, economic, and political biases show, quote, a clear and statistically significant rightward shift in ideological positioning over time. But it's tough to keep an eye or a study focused on bias these days. Just in the last few weeks in 2025, the National Science Foundation has been ordered to scrub certain words from its website, including flagged words like advocacy, biased, biased towards,

biases towards, BIPOC, black, disabilities, diverse, equality, equitable, female, gender, hate speech, LGBT, marginalized, racial justice, sexual preferences, trauma, stereotypes, socioeconomic, victim, women and more. So if you find it infuriating and unnerving that there's been some shakeups in governmental agencies, you can stick around to the end of the episode when I give you some resources from some folks that work within those agencies. But why is science frequently in the crosshairs?

Well, since this episode first aired, Dr. Proctor has also published a book titled Science and the Production of Ignorance, When the Quest for Knowledge is Thwarted, in which he explains that when industries know they're up to some harmful stuff, they can fund research with deliberately murky results. And then they can say they don't know for sure if, say, smoking is bad for you. They'll say it needs more research. And Dr. Proctor writes that it's really quite brilliant because it captures the authority of science and the allegiance of scientists and it made the tobacco industry seem

open-minded and it made public health advocates seem like close-minded fanatics. So that is an interesting read. We'll link that in the show notes. And also, this week in this illuminating interview featuring a political scientist and professor of public policy at the Harvard Kennedy School and the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, Erica Chinnewith was titled The Nature of Our Power, in which Erica says, when you see what autocratic leaders try

to eliminate, you get clearer on what constrains or threatens them and why these systems, procedures, institutions, and the dedicated civil servants within them are so important to protect. So this year, Metta suddenly eliminating fact-checking and loosening hate speech restrictions, and the Bezos-owned Washington Post declining to publish a presidential endorsement for the first time in decades, or the TikTok ban, and then the instant reboot. In a time when tech giants control what we see,

and AI can fabricate images, and they can deep fake voices, and social media owners are installed Rasputin-like behind some pretty historical desks, can we even trust our own perception? And I always think about, you know, even when I was growing up, I grew up in near San Francisco and everyone had a copy of The Chronicle,

and that's where they got their news. You woke up in the morning, you read it, when it was delivered at three in the morning, whatever. And granted, a lot of voices were probably stifled by not getting through to the press, but at the same time, you probably had less disparate sources of information and maybe was there more collective trust? Well, yeah, certainly in the pre Watergate era, there was there was more collective trust in all kinds of institutions.

Oh, in the Watergate era, in case you're like, was in the mid-1970s. So all you youngins who were born after the mid-1970s, which technically is me, FYI. I'm very young and cool. But you know, it's also another whole thing I look at is virtuous ignorance. So not all ignorance is bad, that's

another one of our myths. In fact, many of our forms of ignorance you have to have. The whole right to privacy is a form of ignorance that you don't want other people to know everything about you, your medical records or personal life or whatever. So we create ignorance about things all the time in order just to have a right to privacy. The same thing with all kinds of dangerous knowledge, right? No science magazine will publish a recipe book on how to make AIDS airborne, right? I mean, there's all kinds of dangerous things that I mean, there's all kinds of dangerous things that should not be known and there are all kinds of institutions that require ignorance. So juries must be ignorant of the particulars of a case before they go in or there's medical

confidentiality. There's all kinds of virtuous ignorance. So yeah, there's a mix in how things circulate. And the flatness is a big concern I have, but it's also important to realize it's easy to be awash in information and as easily to be awash in misinformation. And how do we know if we're ignorant or not? I mean, I understand people say ignorance is bliss. I don't know how you feel about that.

But how do we know if we're the dummies who are misbelieving things? Well, for one thing, all of us are profoundly ignorant. One of the things I work on is gemstones. I saw you had an interesting episode on gemology. One of the things I do is I cut and polish stones. What I fantasize about are all the gemstones on other planets. I call them exoagates. We'll never know about that, right? I mean, think of the infinity of beautiful gemstones on other planets. So each of us is profoundly ignorant.

We walk through a tiny slice of life, and that's Socratic wisdom, is knowing the limits of what you know. So all we can do is scrape together a few things, and hopefully those turn out to be true. Just a side note, disclaimer, that gemology episode was one of the first ever recorded and it's a wild ride, not just through minerals and rocks, but also exploring the gemologist's faith in crystal powers, which I discuss from a neuroscience perspective, the mechanisms of the placebo effect are very thrilling and

interesting. So does having a pointy gem in your bra cause you to alter your decisions throughout the day? Feel free to run the experiment yourself. Now let's move on from my bra to the apocalypse, climate change. So the top contributors worldwide to carbon emissions, China and the US. So while many of us in industrialized nations are wringing our hands every day looking at climate data, as a whole, there's actually a lot of shrugs. According to some Gallup data, which is now admittedly 10 years old, residents of the

US and China are less worried about climate change and less likely to agree with, do you think rising temperatures are a result of human activities? Less likely to agree in the nations with the biggest carbon emissions. Latin America, European countries, they're like, hell yeah. But the Middle East is also like, probably not because of humans. So as you'll hear in my ignorant question coming up, I thought the US was more vocal and concerned, but no. Oh no, we're not. It's just my little bubble.

And a 2025 update for you. So yes, according to the 2023 paper, Climate Watch historical GHG emissions via the World Resources Institute, the top five contributors of greenhouse gases per capita are the United States, Russia, South Korea, Iran, Japan, and then China. That was six.

Extra bonus. But US very much in the top there. And a 2024 paper in the journal Nature titled, The Social Anatomy of Climate Change Denial in the United States, found that nearly 15% of Americans deny that climate change is real and that denialism is highest in the south with more than 20% of the populations of Oklahoma and Mississippi Alabama consisting of deniers. Along the West and East Coast's belief in climate change tends to be higher. But a 2018 paper also in Nature titled

Relationships Among Conspiratorial Beliefs, Conservatism, and Climate Skepticism Across Nations notes that there is a political culture in the United States that offers particularly strong encouragement for citizens to appraise climate science through the lens of their world views. So why does this happen? Why does the nation that contributes the most per capita toward climate change, why do we believe it the least? Is it because you can't see

something because it's so close to you and it could unmoor your sense of safety and your identity, kind of like having eyebrow blindness? Because they're, we tend to have more resources, but are the most maybe vocal in terms of combating climate change but we're the biggest contributors. How does anyone kind of grapple with that? Well, both those things are true. In a way, we diagnosed the problem earlier than a lot of people because we're the ones making the problem, right? And it's exactly true what you say, we're the biggest culprits and we're gonna have to lead out of the mess that we've created. Now, fortunately, you know, we do have a lot of

critiques and tools that we can use to try to undo some of the ignorance, the damage that's been done. But again, that's why I'm so interested in a lot of other people are interested in climate agnotology, because there are these dedicated bodies, bodies like the American Petroleum Institute or these various fronts of oil producers whose job is dedicated to continuing the carbon world. And so that's what we've really got to expose and fight against. So it's just a big debate in our Senate at Stanford last week about whether to divest from carbon stocks, big oil and so forth. So a lot of institutions have already done that. Harvard has done that and a lot of other institutions, so there's going to have to be a reckoning and a break with this carbon world and

Unfortunately, things are heading in the wrong direction at present Most of that comes down to of course greed now What about how power is established or maintained through willful ignorance and hate? And what about racial justice? It always struck me even as a kid, reading that all men are created equal, which a left out women entirely and was written by slaveholders. At what point do you think that this country might start to recognize its own ignorance and racism and correct course?

Well, yeah, that's what's been going on for years now, right? It's a slow, steady, you know, one step forward, several steps back sometimes. That was actually yet another prompt for agnatology as I was studying science and wanted to go, I thought about going to MIT out of high school and I looked at it, it was 96% male. I wasn't going to go spend my best hormonal years at MIT around, you know, 96% guys and I thought about going there for graduate school again and it was still 92% male. So, I became aware of that very early. That's how I became a feminist and involved in feminist critiques of science early on. And I was amazed that no one was researching this or that this was not a primary object of study.

And this was I'm talking about the late 1970s now. And that again was like a gaping hole. Why is no one studying this? Why is there silence around that? The same story with racial equality and inequality. Again, I came from the deep south where I remember whites only signs in the early 1960s, late 1950s. And why were people not studying that? And that's why I actually wrote two books on Nazi medicine looking at how the American racial experience was actually used by Hitler and by the Germans and the Nazi regime to carry out their programs of racial destruction that there was this bond between American racialism and the racism of Nazi Germany. And people hadn't really written on that either. So that was another gaping hole. So we've got a lot of these holes that have not been properly excavated or filled.

Yeah, it seems a little bit, it seems that that is what's happening a bit with police brutality and Black Lives Matter. That's right. Well, and of course, one glimmer of hope is that these things are being filmed. That's why body cams are so important as we can actually get a record of this horror and that makes it possible to address it.

I mean, imagine how difficult it would be to prove something like what we saw with the George Floyd case 30 years ago, you know, before ubiquitous or even now. So, yeah. So, yeah. Even now without video, even with video, you know, so imagine that without video. Right. Yeah. Do you get along with all your relatives in the South still or do you just not talk to

them? Yeah, I get along with them. Yeah, I don't see them a lot but yeah, I think we know we have different points of view. But it is interesting because my mom, she didn't even know that her dad was in the Ku Klux Klan and I could sort of tell by talking with him something like this was going on and she was surprised to learn it from me that her own dad had been in the Klan. So, some aspects of this get covered up. It's again, part of the sort of psychological denial maybe that you were bringing up earlier. Having studied this, I know that there's a difference between research and diagnosing

versus prescriptive perhaps, but do any studies come up that show what is effective in changing ignorance in ourselves? Well, of course, that's what pedagogy is all about. That's why a lot of educators have become so interested in agnotology because that's what education is all about. In a way, it's about overcoming ignorance. There's no magic wand that you can wave, but the thing you can do, I think, is try to get some of the big money out of politics to try to go after these institutions that create ignorance. And one of the things I do, I testify against the tobacco industry as an expert witness,

and that's one of the things we always talk about is how the hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars were spent to create this fantasy world of what was called alternative causation or the sunny side of nicotine. And so exposing that, how that that work diagnosing it and showing how it went to very high levels, because what I found is that 25 Nobel laureates have taken money from big tobacco. So the corruption of science, that's one of the main things I'm interested in is how science itself can become corrupted. Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't

stop to think if they should. Good science as part of these engines of ignorance to create distractions about, well, cancer is all genetic, it's your ancestry, it's all food dyes, it's all, you know, anything but cigarettes. So once you understand how these powerful institutions work, that lets you understand, you know, how they might be dismantled. MS. And side note, it's easy to look back on horrible ignorance and injustice and lies and say, of course that was wrong. How could people not know that? How could their intuition or moral compass be so skewed by outside sources, from cigarette commercials to misogyny and more?

Now what will future generations look back on now with utter mortification? What would they profess to build a time machine to come back and fight? How opioids are marketed and have led to an epidemic? Our daily dependence on oil? How we've vaped on TikTok, or America's love affair with cheeseburgers. And since we last recorded this, we're now in February of 2025, that list of potential future mortifications is like, oh, it's like so cute now. It's so innocent. Well, sure. And that's why you have these ag-gag laws in so many states where you can't even film

inside a slaughterhouse. There's a recognition that if people saw the horror of some of the ways we process animals that this might give us pause. So there are a lot of things we do in life that are really made possible by a kind of invisibility, a kind of distancing. That's something that's important to realize is that a lot of what we are able to see is only because we are allowed to see it. I remember when I was at Penn State, we were calling to arrange a lecture series and I called up and it was like, this is the Department of Undersea Warfare and this wasn't even in the card in the in the catalog, the college catalog, that we had a whole section or division on undersea warfare. And so there are a lot of things that

are kept from us. And again, that's why I like to expose secrets. I like whistleblowing. You know, you have to see these things to let the sunshine in. That's why I like to expose secrets. I like whistleblowing. You know, you have to see these things to let the sunshine in. Please see our episode on genocide with Dr. Dirk Moses for more in this vein. And I have questions from listeners. Is it okay to pepper you with them? Sure. Good.

So, so many questions. And before we get to questions, some words from sponsors of the show who make it possible to donate to a cause each week. And this week, while researching, I learned of a lecture our guest gave citing some extremely hurtful racist tobacco advertising in an effort to teach students about how big industries use systemic racism as a weapon. And he read off the names of a few of the brands

that many people in attendance were deeply hurt to hear aloud and later released a statement saying it was in effort to illuminate the wrongness of the messages saying quote my whole career has been devoted to exposing analyzing and condemning racism and white privilege and I wanted to support the National Black Law Students Association who spoke out about the incident and educated so many on the pain that words can cause even in historical and scholastic contexts. So this week I'm choosing that a donation will be going to them and I support the shared goal of dismantling systemic racism and I thank organizations who work to keep us all less ignorant especially when it comes to intentions versus impact which is so important. Dr. Proctor also wanted to support

SavingBlackLives.org, which is the African American Tobacco Control Leadership Council, which educates the public about tobacco products and their effects on black American and African immigrant populations. And he's been working closely with them for years. So a donation goes to them. And why not? Let's do a third donation. This is an important topic. It's going to go to the Public Health Advocacy Institute. They use the civil justice system to improve public health by focusing on litigation, targeting tobacco industry products and unhealthy foods and deceptive health marketing. Maybe jade eggs, I'm not sure, but deceptive gambling practices also, all to advance public health and social justice. So a lot of great donations this week

and a lot of ignorance on all of our parts, but what's important is the willingness to learn. So those donations were made possible by sponsors, who you may hear about now. Okay, now to your questions. Now the first question is about willful ignorance and if it's related to the Dunning-Kruger effect in which the less you know the smarter you think you are. Nicole Howley, Joe Macello, L. Wink, Ed Mastavec, and first time

question asker Phyllis wanted to know. People are very excited about the topic. And some people asked about the Dunning-Kruger effect and whether or not agnotology is related to the Dunning-Kruger effect and whether or not agnotology is related to the Dunning-Kruger effect where people who maybe think that they're more intelligent than they are are ignorant of what they don't know. Do you use that in research at all? Well, I don't use that specifically but that's certainly true is there's a kind of I link it also to a kind of myopia of specialization, you know. The more expertise you often get in science, the more narrow is your focus and that becomes

a kind of tragedy because you don't see the forest for the trees and I believe that the truth is in the hole and you have to see the big picture. I'm a big fan of what we call big history. And also the unity of what we know with what animals know as well, our unity of biological life in the course of evolution. That's one of the things I study also as human origins, how we became human. A lot of our deep biology is still expressed in our limitations today. Okay, quick question because I am unwillingly ignorant. What is big history? Okay, I looked it up and it's history taught from the Big Bang onward,

instead of just starting when us hairy humans meandered on the scene. So big history ends up being kind of multidisciplinary because in order to teach how the planets and the stars formed and the universe expanding you got to go back and learn about physics and astrophysics. It's a bit of a hodgepodge of sciences which is fun and for more on that you can enjoy the two-parter on cosmology with Dr. Katie Mack wherein I get cosmic vertigo, which is a kind of horror at the scale of things. Now, speaking of fear, who asked about fear fueling ignorance? Huh, turns out a lot of you.

First time question asker Ethan Stoller, Aaron Maglisic, Stutten Taggart, Megan Walker, Zora Phoenix, Devin Robertson, Misty Dawn, Beth Monaco, Sam Correa, and Greg. A few people had a question about whether or not fear plays into ignorance and Emily Meredith Lewis is a first-time question asker asks, how much does vulnerability play into it versus entitlement? Well, that's a great question too. That's why we talk about homophobia. That's fairly new to talk about ignorance as a kind of fear or fear as a kind of ignorance to not know what it really means to say be homosexual, for example, leads to a kind of alien misunderstanding. And that I think is a really important part just of human relations is the distancing of peoples from one another allows stereotypes

to develop and stereotyping and blanket ignorances. It goes back sort of to your point about circulation and travel. Descartes used to say there's three great principles for science, travel, travel, travel, because really knowing the other and walking in their shoes, that's why I talk about the importance in history of science of wonder, sympathy, and critique. You want to wonder like a child, but you also want to have sympathy and you want to have critique. So, the sympathy part is you want to walk in the shoes of the past or in this case in someone else's experience to understand them so you don't fear them. But then you still retain your humanity and your recognition there is right and wrong and you are free to critique.

You don't want to lose yourself in someone else's shoes. So you want to maintain principles. So those are three of the principles I operate with wonder, sympathy, and critique. That's beautiful. When it comes to the travel, travel, travel part, what if that causes more of a carbon footprint? Well, of course, that's part of the big problem. The world of the future is going to be very different.

We're not going to have ubiquitous travel. We're not going to have, you know, cigarettes being sold, we're not going to have meat consumption the way we've had it and hopefully we'll even have a lower population because that's also part of the problem. So the world of the future is going to have to be very different. We're kind of sailing away as people like to say running the book of Genesis backwards, you know, and in creating this this unholy world and That's gonna have to change. I'm doing my part by being infertile. You're welcome now did anyone ask about the demographics of

climate science believers Katra's around he did as well as Hannah Johnson also was the first time cross-chtranslator. Asked if there have been research about the demographics of people who are more likely to be science deniers, like significant differences across gender, education level, income, et cetera. Yes, well, of course. Of course.

Wealth is power. Power is wealth. Knowledge is power. Wealth helps create knowledge., wealth can also destroy knowledge, but of course there's huge, huge differences in that regard. There's an interesting connection with climate science denialism is the whole evangelical problem because a lot of climate denialists are evangelical Christians who don't want to confront a world where their God is abandoning them in a sense or allowing us to follow our

own nest. I mean, there's some problems even with the recency of the age of the earth in that whole view, but there are some progressive evangelical critics of us following our net and that's why we need to think very important metaphorically about what kinds of metaphors do we use to overcome denialism. Metaphors of the garden, of the steward, of the flock and you know, the caring for our own life as for other people. So we're going to have to rethink our metaphors. You know, we can't just get away with polar bears and even the one, two, three degree threshold problem, that's not good enough. We've got to think much more creatively about how to bond people

in the stories we tell, the allegories, the stories we tell about why we need to act differently from how we've acted in the past. And I did a little bit of research on this and it turns out that evangelical Christians, that just means Christians who want to spread the good news. And it's kind of been co-opted a little bit to mean the Christian right. But there are a lot of evangelical Christians who do not find that the teachings of Christ align with certain political parties wholly. Wholly with a W. Amy Black is a professor of political science at Wheaton College

and writes a lot about faith and politics. She wrote in 2016, Because evangelical voters are an important voting bloc, politicians have many incentives to pander to them. In this time of rapid social change, church leaders need to train people in the pews on how to respond, helping them understand and embody the core commitments of the Christian faith.

Now what about folks who do not have faith that the earth is round? A lot of you asked about flat earthers, including D.B. Narverson, Mackenzie Campbell, Kate Stomps, Kaylee Douglas, Cassidy Williams, science teacher, Kieran Blaisdell, another science teacher and first time question asker, Chloe Chambers, first time question question askers Kevin Beamer and

Mara Rosenblum and Ben Bignell who says, I drive by a sign for Flat Earth Canada twice a day, five days a week, and wonder every day why people can believe it. I don't know, is the road flat Ben? Think about it. Kind of asked along that line, like without the ability to connect with people digitally, do you think that there'd be fewer flat earthers? Like, when did we start believing the earth was flat? No, that's actually a great question. One of the favorite gotchas or corrections historians of science like to make is actually most people did not think the earth was flat, say, in the Middle Ages.

People knew the world was round. That goes back to antiquity. The actually myth that people used to think the earth was flat really arises in the 19th century in order to basically beat our own chest and say how much greater we are than the Middle Ages. There's a whole book about this, about how in the 1830s the myth of that people used to think the world was flat arose. Now obviously if you go back far enough, I'm sure most people were flat earthers. But yeah, since we are in a world where misinformation, disinformation circulates faster than ever before. I think your your questioner is quite right. That's allowing this some of this craziness to

flourish, you know? And so there may be more flat earthers now than there have been in the last 300 years. Just gonna toss in real quick, if you want more info on this, watch the documentary Behind the Curve. I just saw the trailer for it and wow, wow, wow. Thank you to patron Nicole Thomas who wrote in, quote, At first I was furious, but after watching that I understand that people who operate on the fringe beliefs usually get further marginalized and isolated with their thoughts,

and since no one is engaging them with the correct information, and they've isolated themselves from everyone that has a different set of beliefs, it's really easy to retreat to the community bubbles that have the same belief set. Thanks for writing in, Nicole Thomas. Good point, indeed. You know, Francesca Huggins and Toby Krisnik

seconded this question. Francesca just asked, religion, what gives? And I do wonder, you mentioned evangelical Christians. It seems sometimes that there's a disconnect between the teachings of a certain religion and the actions of its most extreme promoters of the religion. And a 2025 update here.

So this confused me, because we got this new president who signed all these executive orders, and one was an executive order titled, Eradication of Anti-Christian Bias, which is confusing because I thought that the administration didn't believe in bias. But anyway, this executive order is supposed to, quote, ensure that any unlawful and improper conduct, policies, or practices that target Christians are identified, terminated, and rectified. And the president also signed an order that establishes a White House faith office, which

is to be led by this televangelist who has been, she's been married like three times. She was caught having an affair with another televangelist, but I'm not sure if that goes against any personal or religious beliefs. And really, who people sleep with is like none of my business. But anyway, a few weeks ago at the customary interfaith service of prayer for the nation at the Washington National Cathedral, this Episcopalian bishop, Marian Buddies Sermon,

spoke to Christian values and family values that a lot of political leaders have often used to galvanize their cause. In the name of our God, I ask you to have mercy upon the people in our country who are scared now. There are gay, lesbian, and transgender children in democratic, Republican, and independent families, some who fear for their lives. And the people, the people who pick our crops and clean our office buildings, who labor in poultry farms and meat packing plants, who wash the dishes after we eat in restaurants

and work the night shifts in hospitals, they may not be citizens or have the proper documentation. But the vast majority of immigrants are not criminals. They pay taxes and are good neighbors. They are faithful members of our churches and mosques, synagogues, wadara, and temples. And for some reason that sermon didn't sit right with some high-level politicians in the front few rows, and our sitting president later posted that Bishop Buddy, quote, brought her church into the world of politics in a very ungracious way and that

she was nasty in tone and not compelling or smart. He continues apart from her inappropriate statements. The service was a very boring and uninspiring one. She is not very good at her job. She and her church owe the public an apology. And Time Magazine asked for the bishop's reaction to that. And she said that her message, quote, was rooted in Jesus. She said not a partisan agenda. And she continued, I'm not going to apologize for asking for mercy for others. She also warned against America's culture of contempt, as well as the harms of polarizing narratives. And a week or so after the sermon, some folks were still fuming. One US House of Representatives said that Bishop Buddy should be deported.

Bishop Buddy is from New Jersey. So I think she's safe. But yes, why sometimes do politicians appeal to the Christian right? Like why sell a line of $60 Bibles to be used in public schools but not place your hand on a Bible for swearing in. Did ChatGPT come out with a recent translation of the scriptures that's different? Where is that disconnect where you're like, I don't think Christ would do that. That's for sure. I mean, you know, the Sermon on the Mount is very different from some of

the craziness we hear in a mega church nowadays. There are good lessons, good principles in all religions and there are moral aspects, there's ontological aspects. And so, I think part of the problem has become this commercialization of the churches, the merger of churches with the Tea Party movement, which itself was created by Big Oil and Big Tobacco in order to fight taxation and fight governmental regulation. So you have to look at these things politically and in the political context and see how religions have bonded to these other powerful institutions. And in many parts of the world,

you can be three religions. In Japan, you can be Shintoist and Taoist and Confucian. There's no contradiction there. It's really kind of the, for something strange about parts of the West that we feel we have to be either Jewish or Protestant or Catholic or Muslim. That either or is part of the problem. We need to view these things as maybe more like a buffet of practices,

sacred practices. And remember, the sacred means that which you value, that which cannot be touched in some negative way. And we need, I think, to revisit aspects of the sacred. Yeah. And, you know, you mentioned that kind of really stark dichotomy. And I always feel like everything from the colors to the mascots, our political parties have become like opposing sports teams more and more. But do you think that a strong like third party or more political parties would help see those kind of gray areas more? Yeah, I think that would be because there is something

weird about the binary world we're in where winner takes all. Some of the European systems I think are better in the sense of parliamentary representation. You know, so I think we do have some big problems in how we organize our binary world and I think it's getting much worse. So I do worry a lot about that. And Jessica Craver asked, is there a good way to handle talking with someone on a subject like refusal to wear a mask when any slight mention just makes them very angry and worked up and they are maybe incapable of hearing reason? In times of pandemic and self-preservation, any way to get through to people or is that denial just out of fear?

It is odd that something as simple as wearing a mask has become politicized. You know, basically it's something you just follow the rules, right? I mean, just, but I think people need to be just a little more chill. You know, as we say in California, don't harsh my mellow. Kelsey story had a health question and a lot of people seconded to this. They said, uh, why are people so willing to believe in wellness therapies such as cleanses to remove toxins from our bodies? Uh, thanks liver, but so resistant to facts from actual health professionals.

A lot of my agnotology class, I teach both an introduction to agnotology and an advanced agnotology class. We've had several students do interesting projects on food supplements and how people will pay hundreds of dollars for basically something which is basically additives without food. And there's a lot of mythology surrounding what we eat.

I'm a big fan of Michael Pollan, eat simply. There's so many mythologies about what we put into our bodies, I think, because we've had so many powerful trade associations promoting sugar or additives or salt or whatever, highly packaged processed foods. So that's been part of the problem is that trade association problem I mentioned. I mean, just one simple example of that. Three of my four grandparents died from smoking, but my dad's dad, he died of a heart attack and he had smoked two packs a day and died in his mid-50s. But the theory promoted by the tobacco industry at that time was that eggs are what kill you. And so the family story was always he died of eggs.

Oh my God. So I was always terrified of eggs. Oh no. And then when I finally realized by reading the industry's secret documents, the tobacco industry basically created that theory, attacking eggs, in order to exonerate smoking. So, you know, we do live awash in mythologies about what we eat. So, so, so many patrons asked this next question, almost 50. It's the one question on literally all of our minds. So I'm just going gonna read the names of the first time question submitters who asked it.

Another high school science teacher, Miranda Chavez, Susan Webb, Aloy Johnson, scientist Courtney Mollo, Emily Taylor, Kazia Wisniewski, Troy Langneck, Samantha Sonich, and Kevin Leahy, who was the second time question asker, but forgot to say it was their first time last time. And also, you know, all of us wanna know.

And one last question a lot of of listeners had essentially like in Shirley Dark's words, they say, I know others who seem to hold tight to the wrong ideas. What are some good steps to take to make sure you can maybe get through to people and that that's also you're not clinging to false information? I mean, I think I just see, you know, a lot of the fake news, a lot of the fake news, a lot

of the doubts cast on a lot of media. How do we correct that? What do we do? Yeah, well, if it's one-on-one, of course, intelligent listening and sympathetic listening is absolutely crucial, you know. I think there's too much often too much talking, not enough listening. And so, and you know, view other people as if nothing else as anthropologically fascinating. You know, my own brother has become all right recently and we've had many back and forth about that. But if nothing else, I still love him and I'm still fascinated by how in the world this happened, almost in a medical sense. But I think we need to be sympathetic and to listen and to learn from people whose views are very different from us. That's the kind of the anthropological, ethnographic aspect I think of being a scholar or an ordinary person in the world is learning from

others however strange they may seem. Is there a way to use empathy to kind of de-escalate the denial that might come with ignorance? Yes, and that's why I have an idea I developed it called unsurrogacy. Basically, when people deny evolution or climate change, they're really not so much dying evolution or climate change. There's something usually that is behind that. So we need to understand a particular form of denialism as possibly standing for something else. If someone doesn't believe in climate change, is that because they're worried economically that their way of life is going to disappear? Is it they're worried about a threat to religion, a religious view they might have? In other

words, what stands behind these movements? Because a lot of, this goes back to our talk about fear, a lot of ignorance is really as you said about fear. Uh-hmm. And so, maybe we would have better luck having an open discourse by being empathetic to the fears that are behind that and addressing those rather than say with the people in our lives that we might see having viewpoints that are not super kind. I think that's exactly right. Yeah, you have to say what is at stake? Who benefits? What are the alternatives? You know, and until you get behind those, then it could be just shadowboxing

or useless confrontation. Exactly, yeah. I think that especially right now, it's imperative that white people in their lives have those conversations with people that they know. It's almost harder to speak up on a family group text than it is to post a lot of hashtags on Twitter to people who agree with you. Get out of your bubble. Yeah. Yeah. So and have those conversations, you know, privately with people in your life as well as publicly to the people who agree with you.

Right. And last questions, I always ask every guest, what is the worst thing about your job or the thing that you dislike the most? What is something that sticks in your craw, either from a philosophical or just from a practical standpoint, like filing? Well, you know, I have a great job, which is being a professor, I get to interact with students.

I do miss the personal contact because now it's all over Zoom. And I miss the interaction in terms of artifacts. When I teach ignorance or I teach world history or I teach human origins, I bring in artifacts. And it's not the same in the screened world. We already live obsessively in a screened world and so I do miss the loss of the artifactual world.

So, I guess that I would say is the worst part of my job right at the moment. Yeah. But I'm hoping that will change. What about the thing that you love the most about what you do? Well, I love dealing with young people who are learning about the world. I love challenging my own views. I love finding out where I'm wrong, what I didn't know. It wasn't so long ago I learned there was a color called done. I never heard of the color dun before. So I love learning new things. And if people can tell me something I didn't know, I just, what could be

better? And that is what he is trying to do for us. Also, what color is dun? How does one even spell that? Of course I looked it up for us. And it's a camely, creamy kind of buckskin color. D-U-N. So, a dun horse is like a pretty beige horse. So, when in doubt, Google a reputable source. What else? Any places people can start to look if they want to make sure that they're dismantling their own ignorance? Well, they can always check any of these books that are coming out now about ignorance. There's a whole slew of them. There's a new one, Science and the Production of Ignorance that just came out by Janet Kerrany

and Martin Carrier. People who are – agnotology is also being taught now in Europe. And there's the Oreskes Conway book, Merchants of Doubt. There's our agnotology book. I've published a lot of other books. One is called The Golden Holocaust, which is about the use of science as a form of deception by the tobacco industry. So there's so many great – I just finished assigning to students the Wallace Wells Uninhabitable Earth. And before that we did the Shock of the Anthropocene, which is such a great book.

So those are some of the hot topics that we like to explore in the agnotology world. Great. I will put links to those in the show notes as well as to yours, Agnotology, the making and unmaking of ignorance. So we'll make sure that we put that up too. This was so amazing. I can't thank you enough for doing this. This is an episode people couldn't be more thrilled or ready for, so. Great.

Well, that's very timely. It is indeed. So ask smart people stupid questions, because the only thing worse than ignorance is when you don't want to do anything to get rid of it. So yes, that was Dr. Robert Proctor. You can grab his book, Agnotology, The Making and Unmaking of Ignorance, which was co-edited with Londa Scheibinger, wherever books are sold. And dude also came through with some book recs. So if you hit the link in the show notes to alleyward.com

So if you hit the link in the show notes to alleyward.com slash ology slash Agnotology there will be links to all of those books he mentioned including his so I hope you'll call a local Bookstore and order those up. We are at ology's on blue sky and Instagram I'm at alleyward with one L on both if you need perhaps an ology sweatshirt a beanie Maybe a t-shirt don't hesitate to hit up ology's merch calm We also now have small ology's Those are shorter, classroom-safe, kid-friendly versions of Ologies episodes. They're in their own G-rated feed. You can look for Smology's, S-M-O-L-O-I-G-S, wherever you find podcasts. It's got new green artwork, or you can find it linked in the show notes. Thank you to Erin Talbert for adminning the wonderful Facebook

group. Hello to all the Ologies Redditors. Thanks to all the folks who support at patreon.com slash Ologies. Aveline Malik makes our professional transcripts, Noelle Dilworth is scheduling producer, Susan Hale managing directs the whole shebang. This episode was initially edited by Stephen Ray Morris and Jarrett Sleeper of Mindjam Media. Jake Chafee is one wonderful editor here, Mercedes Maitland is our lead editor and did some extra producing on this encore. Nick Thorburn wrote and performed our theme music. If you stick around to the end of the episode, I tell you a secret. And this week, before we get to that, I promised you some resources for what

to do about government agencies, particularly in the science sector being targeted and censored. One thing I'll say is to read these executive orders firsthand. When we see a headline, we often don't get the full scope of the wording, especially on like so many recent executive orders coming all at once. So no one can possibly go through them in one sitting, but it's very illuminating and a little bit more shocking, but when you actually read the executive orders, you'll feel more ready to sort of digest

the enormity of them. So if something's gonna scare you or piss you off, you kind of owe it to yourself to read it fully, because it's oftentimes worse than expected. Or if you're in support of these, then it's good to know exactly what you're supporting, word for word. So you can go to whitehouse.gov slash presidential dash actions

to see exactly what's getting signed. Also, I've been chatting with our lovely sea turtle scientist and colonologist, Dr. Cameron Allen. And she works with Noah a lot. She gave me a list which we can also put on our website which can be found at the link in the show notes. She said if any of the censoring of science is bothering you then you can speak out against current and future harmful executive orders and funding cuts. You can go to fivecalls.org. You can also go to senate.gov and house.gov where you can look up senators and representatives

by state and get contact information. Another thing you can do is donate to NGOs which are suing against the unlawful executive orders. You can go to ACLU.org. You can go to NRDC.org. She also says keep speaking your truth on your social media accounts and connecting with trusted media sources. You can educate yourself on all that's happening to the federal workforce. Heather Cox Richardson has a substack that covers that. Thepublicservicealliance.com

is another one. And if you want to find out more about how the federal workforce is important to you, the public, you can check out a link that we'll post to noah.gov. They have a podcast called Planet Noah from Sun to the Sea and Everything in Between where they talk about what Noah does. So we'll put those resources up on our website and then the second secret is that I'm drinking hot tea out of a vase. It was a vase that came with flowers from the nice lady who helped us design our new kitchen cabinets. I used it as a vase and then I washed all the flower gunk out and now I use it as a mug. It doesn't have handles which means it can hurt my

hands but the size is right, and I just, I guess I remain willingly ignorant about how the situation is just not convenient, it's not intelligent. Sometimes I put a sock on it, and then I'm just drinking out of a vase with a sock on it. Okay, bye bye. cryptozoology, lithology, nanotechnology, meteorology, cryptology, nephology, seriology, pseudology. Fool me once, shame on, shame on you.