A recent discussion on the Skeptical Inquirer page on Facebook got me thinking.  Why are celebrities so effective in leading people astray with anti-science and woo?

I think it's because they are good at presenting narrative. That is, after all, their job.  So they create a particular narrative, that of the conspiracy-cracker, and everything falls into place for them.

The narrative requires that the conspiracy-breaker be reviled by "the establishment," so any evidence from the medical research community is cast as more conspiracy. It's proof the conspiracy-breaker is right, because otherwise why would the big bad establishment people be so upset?

The narrative requires that others who had that information might come forward but couldn't for some reason. The conspiracy-cracker is lucky enough to both see the conspiracy, and have the ability to tell others about it.

The narrative requires a scene where the big stuffy scientist says "that's impossible" and the scrappy guy who never got past fourth grade proves him wrong.  This is very, VERY hard to overcome in the public imagination.  Rooting for the underdog is what we do.

So how can we fight it?

I think we have to recast this narrative as something else.  Reason is not an effective tool for everyone, never was, never will be.

The problem with creating a different narrative is that one where the conspiracy-cracker is wrong ends badly.  It's not a feel-good, overcoming-adversity kind of story.  Instead, someone used his or her power to mislead a bunch of people because he or she has been duped.  Pain, suffering and even death were caused by this person's weakness.  It's a tragedy.  And American audiences don't care for tragedy.

ETA:  Ooh, just found a nice article in Discover online:  Hollywood's Offensive and Deeply Unoriginal "Skeptic Conversion" Narrative, which discusses the popular plotline of skeptic and believer interaction that always seems to end up with the skeptic becoming a believer.