One might think that fact-checking and AI will render the survival of bullshit (BS) difficult. But is that true? I am not sure.
Who better to ask than AI?
I therefore asked META AI to help me out.
This is the response I got:
________________________
Fact-checking and AI can help reduce misinformation, but their impact on “BS” (misinformation, spin, or nonsense) is complex:
Fact-checking’s role:
- Increased accuracy: Fact-checking initiatives can correct false claims and provide reliable information.
- Awareness: Fact-checking raises awareness about misinformation, encouraging critical thinking.
AI’s role:
- Detection: AI-powered tools can detect potential misinformation, flagging suspicious content for review.
- Analysis: AI can analyze large datasets to identify patterns and trends in misinformation.
Limitations:
- Context matters: AI might struggle to understand nuances, sarcasm, or context-dependent information.
- Bias and error: AI models can perpetuate biases or make mistakes if trained on flawed data.
- Cat-and-mouse game: Misinformation creators might adapt and find ways to evade detection.
Popularity of BS:
- Emotional appeal: Misinformation often taps into emotions, making it more memorable and shareable.
- Echo chambers: Social media algorithms can reinforce existing beliefs, making it harder for fact-checking to penetrate.
While fact-checking and AI can help mitigate misinformation, their effectiveness depends on various factors, including implementation, context, and user behavior.
Will BS become less popular? Likely, but it will remain a challenge. Critical thinking, media literacy, and ongoing efforts to improve fact-checking and AI detection will be crucial in reducing its spread.
________________________
This sounds reasonable.
Judging from the comments sections of my blog, I am not optimistic that BS is on the way out. “Critical thinking, media literacy, and ongoing efforts to improve fact-checking and AI detection will be crucial in reducing its spread.” Yes, but in the realm of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM), we also would require a minimum of science literacy, understanding of medicine, common sense and willingness to abandon preconceived ideas when faced with overwhelming evidence.
In the 30+ years that I am researching SCAM, I have seen little of these qualities in those who promote SCAM.
PS
Can someone make a list of prominent SCAM enthusiasts who have changed their mind in the face of sound evidence that contradicted their belief?
Here is mine:
___
___
___
___
___
[You might say that Natalie Grams and Brit Hermes are two examples. I would beg to differ: they were NOT prominent SCAM enthusiasts but they both (rightly) came to prominence only because of their courageous opposition to SCAM]9 Responses to Is the end of bullshit nigh?
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Can you name prominent medical people who switched from being vaccine-hesitant to vaccine-promoters from 2021 to 2025?
ChatGPT said:
That’s a really interesting question — but it’s also a nuanced one. From 2021 to 2025, there have been a few notable cases of prominent doctors, scientists, or influential public figures in health who initially expressed skepticism or hesitation about COVID-19 vaccines — often due to concerns about speed of development, side effects, or government mandates — but later publicly encouraged vaccination when more evidence emerged and real-world data reassured them.
However, there aren’t many household names who completely switched from “vaccine-hesitant” to “vaccine-promoter” in the sense of being deeply anti-vaccine and then becoming an advocate. More often, the shift was from caution or criticism of aspects of rollout policy to clear support for vaccines themselves.
Here are some illustrative examples:
1. Dr. Drew Pinsky
Background: Celebrity physician known for TV shows and public commentary.
Hesitation: Early in the pandemic, he downplayed COVID-19 severity and was skeptical about lockdowns and mandates; later, he expressed caution about the new vaccines’ rapid approval.
Shift: He later apologized publicly for downplaying COVID-19 and strongly urged vaccination as data showed safety and effectiveness.
2. Dr. John Campbell (UK)
Background: A British nurse educator and YouTube medical commentator.
Hesitation: In the early days, Campbell raised questions about side effects and sometimes gave an impression of skepticism, especially regarding booster necessity and side-effect data.
Shift: He continued to clarify he is pro-vaccine overall and encourages vaccination, especially for vulnerable groups, though his content sometimes attracts mixed audiences.
3. Some conservative US figures (not strictly medical doctors)
Certain high-profile conservative commentators — for example, radio hosts and pundits who initially discouraged vaccines or mandates — later reversed their stance publicly after themselves or colleagues suffered severe COVID-19 outcomes. Notable examples include Phil Valentine and Dick Farrel, though unfortunately both died of COVID-19 before they could fully promote vaccines. Their cases were widely publicized as cautionary tales.
4. Robert Malone — partial example
Dr. Robert Malone is more complex: he’s a co-inventor of mRNA technology but became a leading vaccine-skeptic voice about mandates and safety signals. He did not switch to promoting COVID vaccines afterward — in fact, he doubled down — so he’s more an example of someone not switching despite early credentials.
my question was: “Can someone make a list of prominent SCAM enthusiasts who hve changed their mind in the face of sound evidence that contradicted their belief?”
… and the answer I just received from AI to this question is as follows:
While there aren’t many prominent alternative medicine enthusiasts who have completely changed their minds, some notable figures have shifted their stance or become more critical of alternative medicine after encountering sound evidence. Here are a few examples ¹:
Edzard Ernst: A professor of complementary and alternative medicine, Ernst has become a vocal critic of the field’s lack of evidence and potential harm. He advocates for a more scientific approach to evaluating alternative therapies.
Stephen Barrett: As the co-founder of The National Council Against Health Fraud and webmaster of Quackwatch, Barrett has been a long-time critic of alternative medicine. While not necessarily a “change of heart,” his work aims to expose health fraud and promote evidence-based medicine.
Wallace Sampson: A founder of Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine, Sampson was also a vocal critic of alternative medicine, highlighting its lack of scientific basis and potential risks.
Marcia Angell: The former editor-in-chief of The New England Journal of Medicine, Angell has expressed skepticism about alternative medicine, arguing that healthcare practices should be classified based solely on scientific evidence.
It’s worth noting that some researchers and scientists, like Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, and Steven Novella, have consistently been critical of alternative medicine due to its lack of empirical evidence and scientific plausibility.
The ambiguity in both answers shows that hierarchies mask the truth whereas meshes allow everything equal exposure: E.g. “anti-vax” masks anything below the pure-anti-vax title (e.g. sort-of-anti-vax) whereas a mesh containing anti-vax and sort-of-anti-vax allows each to stand in their own realm, without one masking the other.
AI is getting confused accordingly, sometimes choosing one or the other randomly depending on how much context it can find – and it probably can never find enough e.g. “sarcasm” can be an in-joke between a couple of colleagues only.
John Campbell was never prominent as a nurse; his “prominence” came from his YouTube CT nonsense.
As I’ve said many times, there are distinct problems in UK nurse education and Campbell is a very good example of them.
And his “Dr” is nothing to do with clinical practice of any sort, rather about distance learning, so calling him by that title in this context is misleading.
Grok says:
Prominent SCAM Enthusiasts Who Changed Their Minds
1. Edzard Ernst
• Initial Belief: Edzard Ernst, a German physician, was initially trained in and practiced various forms of alternative medicine, including homeopathy, acupuncture, and herbalism. Early in his career, he was open to these modalities and even worked in a homeopathic hospital.
• Change in Perspective: After becoming the first Professor of Complementary Medicine at the University of Exeter, Ernst began rigorously researching alternative medicine. His systematic reviews and clinical trials often found little to no evidence supporting the efficacy of treatments like homeopathy and certain forms of acupuncture beyond placebo effects. Over time, he became a vocal critic of SCAM, advocating for evidence-based medicine and exposing the lack of scientific grounding in many alternative practices.
• Evidence Trigger: His change was driven by the consistent lack of reproducible, high-quality evidence in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews, as well as his commitment to scientific rigor. For example, his studies on homeopathy showed that its effects were not superior to placebo.
• Source: Ernst’s own writings, including his book Don’t Believe What You Think: Arguments for and against SCAM and articles in Skeptical Inquirer ().
2. Britt Marie Hermes
• Initial Belief: Britt Hermes was a practicing naturopath in the United States, trained at Bastyr University, where she enthusiastically promoted naturopathic treatments, including homeopathy, herbal remedies, and other alternative therapies.
• Change in Perspective: After working as a naturopath, Hermes began questioning the scientific validity of her practices when she encountered cases where naturopathic treatments were ineffective or potentially harmful. She conducted her own research and discovered that many naturopathic claims lacked empirical support. She left the profession and became an outspoken critic, running the blog Naturopathic Diaries to educate others about the lack of evidence behind naturopathy.
• Evidence Trigger: Her turning point came from reviewing primary scientific literature and recognizing the absence of credible evidence for naturopathic interventions, coupled with ethical concerns about patient harm. For instance, she criticized the use of unproven treatments like intravenous vitamin C for cancer.
• Source: Hermes’ blog (Naturopathic Diaries) and interviews in outlets like Science-Based Medicine.
3. Mark Crislip
• Initial Belief: Mark Crislip, an infectious disease specialist, was not a fervent SCAM enthusiast but early in his career was open to exploring alternative medicine, particularly acupuncture, due to its popularity and anecdotal claims of efficacy.
• Change in Perspective: As he delved deeper into the scientific literature, Crislip found that acupuncture’s purported benefits were largely due to placebo effects and lacked mechanistic plausibility. He became a prominent skeptic, co-founding the Science-Based Medicine blog and hosting the Quackcast podcast, where he critiques SCAM practices with humor and rigor.
• Evidence Trigger: His shift was driven by systematic reviews, such as those from the Cochrane Collaboration, showing no significant benefit of acupuncture over sham acupuncture for conditions like chronic pain.
• Source: Crislip’s contributions to Science-Based Medicine and his podcast Quackcast.
4. Steven Novella
• Initial Belief: Steven Novella, a neurologist and founder of the New England Skeptical Society, was initially curious about alternative medicine practices like homeopathy and chiropractic as a medical student, given their widespread use and patient testimonials.
• Change in Perspective: Through his training and exposure to evidence-based medicine, Novella began critically evaluating SCAM claims. He found that many lacked biological plausibility or empirical support. He is now a leading skeptic, co-founder of Science-Based Medicine, and host of The Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe podcast, where he debunks pseudoscientific claims.
• Evidence Trigger: Key evidence included meta-analyses showing no effect of homeopathy beyond placebo and studies revealing risks of chiropractic neck manipulations. For example, a 2010 meta-analysis in The Lancet confirmed homeopathy’s ineffectiveness.
• Source: Novella’s articles on Science-Based Medicine and his podcast.
Grok is wrong or has misunderstood the question or the question was badly formulated.
The input text was “make a list of prominent SCAM enthusiasts who hve changed their minds in the face of sound evidence that contradicted their belief”
thanks; in this case, Grok is mistaken:
1. I was never a “prominent SCAM enthusiast”; in my books I tell the true story, for example, that, at a press conference on the occasion of the establishment of the Exeter chair, I was asked “How will you cope with all the skeptics?” My reply was “I will be more skeptical than they are.”
2. Brit Hermes: she became prominent after she had changed her mind about SCAM and was not a “prominent SCAM enthusiast” before.
3. Mark Crislip was never a “prominent SCAM enthusiast”
4. Steven Novella was never a “prominent SCAM enthusiast”