Lee mcintyre is a Research Fellow at the center for philosophy and history of science at boston university. He is the author of dark ages, the for a science of Human Behavior posttruth and the scientific attitude defending science, denial, fraud and pseudoscience all published by the mit press, he is joined in conversation by Hank Phillippi ryan, the usa today bestselling author of 14 novels of suspense. She has won multiple prestigious awards for her crime fiction, including five. Agatha is five anthonys and the coveted mary clark award. Shes also on air Investigative Reporter for bostons whdh tv and has won 37 emmys, 14 Edward R Murrow awards and dozens of other honors for her groundbreaking. Lee mcintyre is presenting his new book on this information how to fight for truth and protect democracy. The effort to destroy facts and make ungovernable didnt come of nowhere. It is the culmination of seven years of strategic denialism in on disinformation. Lemack entire shows how the war on facts began and how ordinary citizens can fight back against the scourge of disinformation that is now threatening the very fabric of our. In the words of michael shermer, quote lee mcintyre has emerged as our foremost scholar of science denier and an intellectual activists combatting the attempted assassination truth in the teeth of fake alternative facts, conspiracy, identity politics, postmodern ism and epistemological relativism. Lee mcintyre is on this expertly identifies who the enemies of truth are and how to counter claims with reason, science and. Compassion. A Tour De Force scholarship and advocacy. We are so pleased that it is this event at Harvard Bookstore tonight. Please join in welcoming lee mcintyre and hank ryan. A Tour De Force he called it a Tour De Force. I sent michael a big bag of cash to tell you. Did not. You did not welcome tonight and thank you for this marvelous, thought provoking book. Just to start, just for the basics. What is disinformation . And well get a lot more into it. But just so we know what were starting, you started with most important question of all because what drives me crazy is when i see newscasters always saying misinformation, they mean disinformation. Misinformation is a mistake. Its an accident. Its when you believe a falsehood just by accident. Just happen to believe something thats false disinformation, a lie. This information isnt intentional falsehood that by someone who has an agenda they want you to believe the falsehood because it serves not you. And thats interesting because. A falsehood that is created to be told has a motivation behind it. And someone is being fed some sort of information and then urge to say paid to say it, we talk a little bit about that process. It depends what they want. In some cases, its money. In some cases, its political power. This can happen with science facts. It can happen with, you know, other factors of reality. And usually the way it works is that i mean, theres really a a playbook that they follow because disinformation is not just about getting you to believe a falsehood. Its about making sure that that falsehood isnt something that you later become convinced is a falsehood. Now, how do they do that . Its by undermining your trust in the other side. Well, lets talk about that more in a minute. I think it is so incredibly and so valuable what you do to give us a roadmap to recognize it, understand it and fight it. And thats what i really think book on disinformation is about. And it doesnt gorgeously in this wonderful, little shareable portable format. Why did you feel compelled to write this . Why did you feel compelled to write it and fight it and share it with everyone . So ive been fighting for truth and and science for a long time. Im a philosopher of science. Im a scholar. And i became a public philosopher because all of a sudden truth and justification and evidence were in the news. And so i wanted to start, you know, write about this topic and wrote earlier books, posttruth and the scientific attitude and how to talk to a science. And i actually went to a flat Earth Convention to try to talk to people, their beliefs. I mean, i did the work. I did the work on the ground, but was left with the feeling that there was something i was still missing, which was the motivation behind it. And, you know, i found that, yes. Could talk to the people who believed the falsehood and try to debunk it and try to build their trust and try get them to change their mind. But then i realized that there were i wanted to turn the telescope around and realize there was another end to this, which were the people who were creating the falsehood. So once you buy into. And that was when the book came in i didnt have to write very much it was a short book because this was the missing piece of the puzzle that disinformation is what causes denial. People dont wake up one day and wonder whether there is a jewish space laser starting the wildfires in california. Theyre fed is a lie. Who would lie about that . Somebody who has an interest at stake. And its interesting when you talk being fed it as a lie because its like planting the seed of a belief and then cultivating this belief until it goes and grows into what is becoming truth. It truth to them and it feels which is so terrifying. Do you remember the first time you heard someone say alternative facts . I happened to be watching. I was in real time when. Kellyanne conway said alternative. I wish i had been with you. So what what was your reaction to that . I dont think i said. I was by myself in the room watching tv. Dont think i said much. I just kind of watching my jaw dropped and i wasnt completely happy. I cant remember who. It was that she said it to. Was it chuck todd . Is it jake tapper . I wasnt happy with his response to. But if it was a jaw dropping moment, i mean, i think he laughed, actually is an interesting reaction to it because. It was such a. Yeah, because it was such new concept. The idea of calling it alternative facts. I mean, people who create something for people to believe, you know, disinformation and dont often label it themselves as that. Well, she was pushed was under some some pressure. You know, its new for politics. Its not in the academy where it came from. I mean, that idea that theres no truth theres only narrative that comes from the academy that came from literary, from postmodernism and relativism. So i was already familiar with that. I just never seen it used in american politics. So the thing that i started to wonder, you know, at that moment when shes talking about alternative facts is, you know, son of a gun. Now the right wing has up postmodernism because there wasnt that long ago when cheneys wife was writing a book excoriating the relativists. You know, these were the worst people ever but now on the right. They figured out that they saw this flame thrower sitting there in the battlefield said, oh, i wonder how this works. Wow, thats really effective. And they figured out that you can have a narrative and, feed the narrative, and it has all these benefits. Now thats why it was invented in literary criticism. Im not laying blame. Its just that they left their flame thrower laying around and its such a powerful weapon. And we see that when things that we see with our own eyes, for instance, just randomly, how many people to an inauguration and were told that its something else. We say no at the picture. Talk a little bit about that. So that was another searing moment for me in writing. I think i was writing a post truth at the time and you know, the moment trump said that his inauguration was bigger than obamas, i you know, a lot of people shocked because why would he say that why would he Say Something that was so easily fact checked . It just it didnt make. It did sense because what he was doing was asserting his power. He was saying that was the first shot in the war against reality. He was saying, you know what, this is the reality. You now live in. You live in a reality in which i tell you whats true now . It wasnt actually true. But anybody whos ever lived in a country that is a dictator ship, country that has propaganda, understands that there is sense in which if the leader says something is true, its true. Now, we didnt live that nation yet, but i think thats what he was saying. He wanted to the i defined the word so that my first book kind of in this series its called posttruth and i define posttruth the political subordination reality. Its that moment. I didnt particularly like oxford dictionary definition of it and they made it word of the year and i had one of the first books with posttruth in, the title. So i tried to, you know, grab it, redefine it. And i think the political subordination of reality says, something about it that oxford did not is that theres a point this theres a goal, theres a strategy. There are people behind it people who are benefiting from bending the truth. Well, i mean, i think its interesting because the political subordination reality is such an incredible concept to grasp, because there is reality. There is truth. And the idea that you are some word like survive, you can make it be into your it into your own truth and it truth. And then it becomes someone is truth that is terrifying. Well and almost as to actually more than that is the idea that there is no such thing as true or that if there is truth, it cant be known. I mean, goal of disinformation is to get you to believe a falsehood. Another goal of disinformation is to polarize you, to get you to hate someone. If they dont believe that same falsehood and to distrust them so that you ever listen to anything they say. So remember, that means that youre not just one falsehood. Youre now the whole process by which truth comes together. But heres third part the even most insidious part, its to confuse you and to make you feel helpless. To make you feel like im confused. I dont even know whats. How do any of us know whats true . Everybodys biased and. Theres no such thing as truth. I be my own fact checker. I check out because those are the people who are the easiest to rule. And you have a wonderful chapter in disinformation about that and how to recognize that and the careful steps of, the process. I recommend it to you all, because it not only is illustrative of the process, but it helps us recognize we see that. And when we hear it, the process of the arguments that they make mean. I remember when i was a kid, we used to watch huntley and brinkley or Walter Cronkite and those people told us news and we believed this was true. Kind of because was no reason to believe that it wasnt true. How much do the presenters of news have to do with our beliefs and how has that changed. I think it was i mean. I remember Walter Cronkite were people who were criticizing Walter Cronkite during vietnam. Even the time what happened that i think that people figured out that these alternative narratives were really fascinating and that they looked enough like news that i mean, they were more and especially after the downfall of the fairness doctrine when rush came on the scene and then fox news and everything that came after, people figured out that this could really make money. I mean, it wasnt long ago when the news was the loss leader. It was what the that they needed to do in order to keep their broadcast license and run all their entertainment they needed a half hour of news to justify it but all of a sudden they they could make money on news. And what that does is it means that the media has their own interests. Now, im always loathe to draw any sort of false equivalence. And so im not going do that. But im going to say that all of the cable networks, no matter what their partizan slant, do, have their own interests, their interest in engagement and ratings and not being accused of political bias. Well, it used to be i mean, talk a little bit about the difference between it used to be there. Two sides of every story. You talked about the fairness talk about the difference between two sides to every story and spin and disinformation and proper gander. How do we what are the among those and how do we recognize that . Now, you just asked if philosopher to make some distinctions so we could be here for 2 hours. If i did all of that, let me put it this way. Propaganda is when youre trying to convince somebody that something is true and it could be true and. You could even believe that its true. But youre just youre using it to try to persuade. Disinformation is black disinformation when you know that its untrue and youre using it for an purpose, its a falsehood that you know is true. And the other word that you will the two sides dont spin. Oh, is spin. So do you remember when politicians used to be embarrassed when they got caught lying . I mean, think about john edwards. He his entire career was over because he got caught lying. I mean, there used be such a thing as blame and accountability because there used to be such a thing as recognizing when you were caught in a lie and it was a bad i dont think politicians feel that way anymore. And the trouble now to bring the media back and back into it now is remember why im talking to you. So be is that you know this question about being accused of political bias the easiest way show youre not politically biased is to let both sides talk. But what do you do when one side is lying . I said once before or in a program i forget where at the Halfway Point between truth and a lie. Its still a lie. I read a better version of that that i wish i had said the other day stuart stevens. Hes got a book for sale here somewhere. I read him on twitter. He said, how do you tell both sides of a lie . Yes. You cannot tell both sides of a lie. So whats the charge to journalism . To tell the truth, even if it leads to accusation of political bias for telling the truth . I mean, its interesting because back in the olden days, again, a a newbie reporter like me, you in 1975 would not have said to someone thats a lie, would not have said in an interview thats, just not true. You would say. Heres a piece of paper that says something that show that proves something that. What you said isnt correct. You look at this and tell me what you think about. This what do you think . The role of the media should be now when someone says something thats whatever not is. I remember watching the new york go through all media, but i remember especially watching the New York Times go through this and the milestone when they finally used the word lie, when they were talking about trump and i understand that that was a kind of a crisis because, you know, they didnt want to to do it. And i didnt know there were so synonyms for lying. I its mendacious. It dissimulation. I mean, how many words can you use and you dont want say and i cant remember anymore but how many words before you say lie. And the problem is that when you say that somebody is a liar, youre saying that they know that what theyre saying is not true. So it comes into the question of intent and you know, then you feel like you have to prove it. But isnt that really in the great interest of the this informer right to this informer who wants to fudge things pretend that because part of their schtick is no, its not a lie its true. Well how could you ever and you and you and you do so so beautifully and on this you handle what say when confronted with that talk a little bit about the ways they get out of when someone says thats not true so there tactics in this information theres disinformation can be taught theres theres a kind of a a playbook. This is not my book. This is a free the handbook of russian warfare. This is not written by russia. This is written by naito. And they talk about the different tactics. There is what about ism. There is the firehose of falsehood. Well, lets take them one at a time. What is what about ism . So what about ism . You putin use this all the time. You see trump use it as well. When someone pins you to the wall with a question that you cant. You pivot to something that you know on the other side. So if somebody i remember a reporter once an american reporter asked putin something about why many of his enemies happened to be standing high windows and fall of them, you know. Well, why . What was he afraid . And he pivoted. Well, what about and i cant remember what he said next, but it was it a distraction you to something else. So what about ism a way of getting yourself after off the topic and you know and if the what about outrageous enough then can kind of be the little distraction that you know the interviewer follow and we hear that all the time and once you raise the whats show us what that sounds like let us hear what that sounds like when. We were watching television. Now were listening to too radio now. Now well understand. Someone even says, what about oh, they use the term. Yes, they say, what about i mean thats what its like both sides ism. Why is called both sides ism. Yeah what about ism. They used the term and now we should in our brains go ding ding ding. Here is something that is. I didnt want to talk about that. Yes, exactly. And then you said the so the fire hose. The fire hose of falsehood or the fire hose of lies, this is really a terrific one. And again, putin uses this all the time and trump uses this all the time. Its when you just tell lie, lie after lie. Even the lies can even contradict one another. It doesnt matter. The point is to get so far ahead of the people who are trying to debunk you that they give up. After about the 10th lie, they think this guys not even worth talking to. What am i going to do . Go home for the rest of the night, debunk all this . Meanwhile, theyve moved on. Ill give you an example. When, after january six, when were talking about the violence on january. One of trumps and the republican partys stock phrases was this was a peaceful but then the footage came out show that it was not peaceful rally and they would say well it was a peaceful rally but any violence was committed by blacklivesmatter. There is a false flag or by antifa. Well, how can both of those things be true at the same time . There was no violence, but the was committed by false flag. If they contradict one another. So. So what you do and i mean, i could ask you a question because i know that you would probably interview food dictators, propaganda strongmen. You know the people who you know as a matter of ruling just lie to their people mean this is what authoritarians where they its interesting how do you do it. Well its interesting i did an interview with a person a while ago who was in charge of the town water. I mean its small its the town water. And i was asking i asked him whether there was a certain of what is called to arms trial meetings in the water, which are and he said me we have no evidence of arms in the water. So i said, okay. And then i though