Yokel
LE

We live in an age of disinformation. This comes from both malicious and innocent sources, but whatever the cause, it poses huge dangers to the future of society and even as individual it is a risk to our well being. What can be done about it?
Information Theory suggests that the amount of information contained within a message is related to its rarity - for example a sharp shooting pain in one's chest, coupled with other symptoms suggests that urgent medical attention is needed. However, Psychology shows that the less expected or politically/emotionally acceptable it is the less likely it is is to be accepted and acted upon. To the use the severe chest pain example, how many people hesitate and hope that it will go off, because they are "too young for a heart attack" or it is probably indigestion. Every GP could tell you tales of patients who ignored symptoms until it was too late. I nearly did this myself when I found a lump in my nuts, but I told a friend and she pestered me to go and see the doctor.
How many people refuse conventional medicine due to possible side effects, yet when taking 'natural' remedies they decide to ignore things such as palpitations or a rash because they do not associate natural products with those risks?
Information is measured in terms of the ability to resolve uncertainty, but this offers no solution to the problem of people becoming certain of things that are factually wrong. Information does not exist on its own, it is the cause of action or inaction. Therefore, can 'information' be measured and charactersed in terms of are the consequences of acting upon it positive of negative - and if so how? Are negative feedback and checks and balances the only way of doing this?
Information Theory suggests that the amount of information contained within a message is related to its rarity - for example a sharp shooting pain in one's chest, coupled with other symptoms suggests that urgent medical attention is needed. However, Psychology shows that the less expected or politically/emotionally acceptable it is the less likely it is is to be accepted and acted upon. To the use the severe chest pain example, how many people hesitate and hope that it will go off, because they are "too young for a heart attack" or it is probably indigestion. Every GP could tell you tales of patients who ignored symptoms until it was too late. I nearly did this myself when I found a lump in my nuts, but I told a friend and she pestered me to go and see the doctor.
How many people refuse conventional medicine due to possible side effects, yet when taking 'natural' remedies they decide to ignore things such as palpitations or a rash because they do not associate natural products with those risks?
Information is measured in terms of the ability to resolve uncertainty, but this offers no solution to the problem of people becoming certain of things that are factually wrong. Information does not exist on its own, it is the cause of action or inaction. Therefore, can 'information' be measured and charactersed in terms of are the consequences of acting upon it positive of negative - and if so how? Are negative feedback and checks and balances the only way of doing this?