Talk:Agnotology

Add Science Wars under "See Also"
Suggest adding Science Wars to the list in "See Also" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_wars This is certainly an example of Agnotology. Tony (talk) 14:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Stamford or Stanford?
Was the conference mentioned really at Stamford University, Bangladesh, or was it at Stanford University, California? Colonies Chris 12:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Agnotology
 * The Making and Unmaking of Ignorance
 * Edited by Robert N. Proctor and Londa Schiebinger
 * 2008 312 pp.
 * 1 table, 15 illustrations.
 * ISBN: 9780804756525
 * Cloth $65.00
 * ISBN: 9780804759014
 * Stanford University Press — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.128.250.141 (talk) 02:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Importance
I have reviewed this article and read almost all of its references. Though at first skeptical, I have come around to the opinion that we are observing the birth of a new and very significant line of research. It touches upon epistemology, political science, the history of science, the sociology of science, and historiography. Several books have been written about Agnotology, though their titles lack this label, and there has been at least one academic conference on the subject. I think this rapidly evolving academic discipline needs to be monitored by Wikipedia, through the medium of this article and others. — Aetheling (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC).


 * It seems the term Agnotology could well be applied to the efforts to downplay Anthropogenic Global Warming as well -- and for a laugh, the successes of the Church of Scientology. 71.48.252.24 (talk) 02:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, the term Agnotology seems to apply to efforts to promote claims that AGW theory is supported by a "consensus" of scientists - when a recent study found that only 40 out of 12,000 peer-reviewed studies actually support the theory:


 * Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead


 * How can we get Wikipedia to address the conflict between those who say that AGW consensus is 97% and those who say that it's only 0.3%? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Lord Monckton is a ranting ideologue, not a scientist, and anything written by him is immediately suspect. Is there a source for this sort of claim that is not coauthored by Lord Monckton?.--greenrd (talk) 12:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Coined?
According to the book, "Iain Boal came up with the term". https://books.google.ca/books?id=qp7rKT56fw0C&pg=PA27&lpg=PA27&dq=agnotology+Iain+Boal+came+up+with+the+term Keith McClary (talk) 02:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The article is in the category "2000s neologisms", but in the article it says the term was first coined in 1995 by Robert N. Proctor. -- Gebu (talk) 07:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

A related issue: the article begins: "This article is about the 20th-century study of culturally-conditioned ignorance", but while perhaps coined in the 20th century, it seems most of the study has taken place in the 21st century EACH (talk) 21:16, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Agnotology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070319025655/http://www.stanford.edu/dept/history/Faculty/proctor.html to http://www.stanford.edu/dept/history/Faculty/proctor.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Is Inhofe's picture relevant here? Is it's use neutral?
Apokrif (talk) 04:51, 24 December 2021 (UTC)


 * It isn't, but that's what Wikipedia is like nowadays. 2601:547:501:8F90:995D:7C70:C6C8:501C (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Depends what you mean by "neutral". If you mean "somewhere in the middle between what scientists say and what ignorant ideological wackjobs say", then it is not neutral. If you mean the usual Wikipedia definition "true to what the reliable sources say", then it is. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


 * It's challenging to find graphic images that portray abstract concepts like agnotology. However, this image does exemplify the definition. Another example is tobacco industry disinformation. Both tobacco and fossil fuel industries participate in disinformation campaigns, but it's the fossil fuel disinformation that's more pertinent today. — RCraig09 (talk) 16:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I deleted the picture before seeing your reply. You may restore it but I think it looks like a personal attack against Inhofe. Apokrif (talk) 18:28, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Undeleted. It is not a personal attack. That Imhofe and his fellow denialists are wrong is consensus in science. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

(edited out because it should have been a new topic) Tunkall (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Agents and passive clauses - questionable paragraph?
I'm currently working within agnotology and stumbled over the following paragraph:

"Agents of culturally induced ignorance include the media, corporations, and government agencies, through secrecy and suppression of information, document destruction, and selective memory. Passive causes include structural information bubbles, including those that reflect racial and class differences, based on access to information."

The first sentence links to a page with a short description of a Workshop by Proctor. This sentence seems to be the source: "Workshop participants will explore how ignorance is produced or maintained in diverse settings, through (for example) media neglect, corporate or governmental secrecy and suppression, document destruction, and myriad forms of inherent or avoidable culturopolitical selectivity, inattention, and forgetfulness."

Proctor's statement seems much less strong than the sentence here in the article, which sounds a bit like a dog-whistle for "media manipulates us all". (As opposed to the more differentiated view: We are all biased, and we can never present all facts or perspectives because our attention and mind are inherently limited. No means of communication can escape that. Media has responsibilities, but it's important not to forget that media actors cannot escape the human condition either). The source sentence seems more multifaceted, and it states that these are examples, not an exhausting list. Then again I'm not sure whether a pointed, context-poor and short workshop description is suitable to provide such a summary info on agnotology.

"Passive causes include ..." has no source at all. Regarding content, I again worry that this doesn't do a good job at explaining the complexity well. We all live in "structural information bubbles", be it your friend group, the media bubble any specific country, or wherever else you choose to get your information from. Maybe it could be fixed with more specification or an example (and a source!).

I'm sorry that I don't have time for an edit right now, I know that pure critiques are not thankful. Tunkall (talk) 20:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Small addition: Maybe this danger to present a one-sided view that doesn't reflect what agnotology actually teaches us could be lessened if this quote is added somewhere nearby:
 * "Agnotology could be a challenge to hubris, if there is modesty in learning how deeply ignorant we are." (Robert Proctor in chapter 1 of "Agnotology: The Making and Unmaking of Ignorance"). Tunkall (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Religion?
The topic is about culturally-induced ignorance and yet there is no reference to the role of organised religion, of promoting faith over reason, and ignorance over knowledge. Pensivepeter (talk) 14:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)