What is *Merchants of Doubt* by Naomi Oreskes about?

*Merchants of Doubt* exposes how a small group of scientists, often with ties to political or corporate interests, systematically undermined public understanding of scientific consensus on issues like tobacco smoke, acid rain, and climate change. The book reveals their tactics—media manipulation, cherry-picked data, and personal attacks on researchers—to cast doubt on established science and delay policy action.

Who should read *Merchants of Doubt*?

This book is essential for readers interested in science communication, policymaking, or the history of misinformation. It resonates with scientists, educators, journalists, and activists seeking to understand how doubt is weaponized against empirical evidence.

Is *Merchants of Doubt* worth reading?

Yes. The book provides a meticulously researched account of anti-science campaigns, offering critical insights into modern debates over climate change and public health. Its compelling narrative and historical examples make it a cornerstone for understanding science denialism.

What tactics do the "merchants of doubt" use to obscure scientific truth?

Key strategies include leveraging media platforms to amplify fringe views, discrediting peer-reviewed research through ad hominem attacks, and posing as impartial experts despite financial or ideological conflicts of interest. These tactics create false debates where scientific consensus already exists.

How does *Merchants of Doubt* link tobacco and climate change debates?

The book identifies overlapping actors—such as Fred Seitz and Fred Singer—who transitioned from defending tobacco companies to challenging climate science. Both campaigns relied on distorting evidence, manufacturing uncertainty, and targeting regulatory outcomes.

What lessons does *Merchants of Doubt* offer for science communication?

The book underscores the need for scientists to engage publicly, counter misinformation proactively, and expose bad-faith actors. It highlights the dangers of conflating scientific uncertainty with ignorance, a tactic exploited by doubt merchants.

How does *Merchants of Doubt* explain the role of media in spreading doubt?

Media outlets often amplify contrarian voices for "balance," even when they lack scientific credibility. This false equivalence creates perceived controversy, eroding public trust in institutions like the IPCC or FDA.

What is the significance of the title *Merchants of Doubt*?

The title reflects how these actors commodify uncertainty, selling doubt to industries and politicians seeking to avoid regulation. Their work prioritizes profit or ideology over public health and environmental integrity.

贩卖怀疑的人

少数科学家如何掩盖了从烟草烟雾到全球变暖等问题的真相

内奥米·奥雷斯克斯和埃里克·M·康韦

4.17(7842 Reviews)

《贩卖怀疑的人》概述

探索少数科学家是如何破坏关键的公共卫生和环境政策的。本书被阿尔·戈尔（Al Gore）誉为“任何关心美国民主的人”的必读书目，它揭露了从烟草问题到气候变化中，那些被用来制造质疑的惯用伎俩。

选择讲述方式

一本书，多种聆听方式。

来自《贩卖怀疑的人》的相同理念。选择适合你的声音、深度和节奏，随时切换。

第 1 章

The Science of Deception: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth

Have you ever wondered why scientific issues that should be settled-like climate change, smoking's health effects, or acid rain-remain controversial in public discourse? Picture this: a small group of influential scientists, veterans of the Cold War, deliberately creating confusion about scientific evidence to prevent regulation of industries they ideologically supported. This isn't conspiracy theory-it's documented history. Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway's "Merchants of Doubt" meticulously traces how these scientists used their prestigious credentials to manufacture uncertainty about well-established scientific findings. The book has become required reading in many science policy courses, with Al Gore citing Oreskes' research in "An Inconvenient Truth." Its cultural impact extends beyond academia-Leonardo DiCaprio referenced its findings in his climate documentary "Before the Flood," and a 2014 documentary film adaptation brought these revelations to wider audiences. What makes this investigation particularly compelling is its documentation of how the same tactics and often the same individuals moved from issue to issue-from tobacco to acid rain to climate change-using identical playbooks to delay regulation through manufactured doubt.

第 2 章

The Tobacco Strategy: Doubt as a Product

In 1969, a tobacco executive penned a revealing memo that would become the blueprint for decades of science denial: "Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the minds of the general public." This insight-that normal scientific uncertainty could be weaponized to undermine established knowledge-became the foundation for nearly every campaign against inconvenient scientific findings in the last half-century. The tobacco industry pioneered this approach when confronted with evidence linking smoking to cancer. Rather than directly challenging the science, they created an alternative narrative emphasizing uncertainty. "More research is needed," became their mantra, while they funded studies designed to find alternative explanations for lung cancer. They understood that if people believed the science was unsettled, they would continue their habits without demanding regulation. What's remarkable is how successfully this strategy transferred to other issues. The same scientists who defended tobacco-particularly physicists Frederick Seitz and S. Fred Singer-later applied identical tactics to acid rain, the ozone hole, and climate change. These weren't random connections; documents reveal deliberate recruitment of scientists with established credentials who could lend authority to industry positions. The genius of the doubt strategy is its asymmetry. Scientists must prove their case beyond reasonable doubt, while denial requires only raising questions. As one tobacco memo noted, "Doubt is also the limit of our 'product'... We cannot take a position directly opposing the anti-cigarette forces and say that cigarettes are a contributor to good health. No information that we have supports such a claim." This approach exploits a fundamental aspect of science itself-its inherent caution and acknowledgment of uncertainty. Scientists qualify their statements, acknowledge limitations, and specify confidence levels. These necessary scientific practices became weapons in the hands of those seeking to prevent regulation, who could point to any expression of uncertainty as evidence that "the science isn't settled."

边听边看，每个词都清晰呈现

轻松跟读，《贩卖怀疑的人》中的每个词都会随音频实时高亮。

第 3 章

Cold Warriors: From Strategic Defense to Environmental Skepticism

Who were these merchants of doubt? Primarily, they were physicists whose careers had flourished during the Cold War through weapons development and defense research. Frederick Seitz had worked on the atomic bomb and later became president of the National Academy of Sciences. S. Fred Singer directed the National Weather Satellite Service. William Nierenberg directed the Scripps Institution of Oceanography while working on defense projects. Robert Jastrow founded NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. These men shared not just scientific backgrounds but hawkish Cold War politics. They opposed detente and arms control, believing the Soviet threat required an aggressive military posture. This worldview led them to support Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI or "Star Wars") despite scientific criticism of its feasibility. When Carl Sagan and other scientists warned that nuclear war might trigger a catastrophic "nuclear winter," these Cold Warriors saw it as a threat to their defense priorities. In response, they created the George C. Marshall Institute in 1984, initially to defend SDI from scientific criticism. The Institute's founding chairman was Frederick Seitz, with Jastrow and Nierenberg as directors. The Marshall Institute's approach foreshadowed their later environmental skepticism: they attacked both the science of nuclear winter and the scientists themselves, particularly Sagan, whom they portrayed as politically motivated. When Sagan published in Parade magazine before peer review, they seized on this procedural irregularity to question the entire concept, despite subsequent peer-reviewed studies confirming the basic phenomenon (though with less severe effects than initially predicted). As the Cold War ended, these scientists found a new enemy in environmentalism, which they viewed as a stalking horse for government regulation and, ultimately, socialism. Their defense of free markets became an ideological crusade against any science suggesting capitalism produced harmful side effects requiring regulation.

第 4 章

Acid Rain: The Rehearsal for Climate Denial

The acid rain controversy of the 1980s served as a dress rehearsal for later climate denial tactics. By the late 1970s, scientific evidence had firmly established that sulfur dioxide emissions from coal-burning power plants were causing acidification of lakes and forests across the northeastern United States and Canada. The science was clear: acid rain was real, human-caused, and damaging. When Ronald Reagan took office in 1981 on a deregulatory platform, his administration needed scientific cover to avoid addressing the problem. They turned to William Nierenberg to chair a review panel on acid rain, despite his lack of expertise in the field. Though most panel members affirmed the scientific consensus, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy inserted Fred Singer into the panel, where he consistently emphasized uncertainties and costs of regulation. When the panel's report was finalized, Nierenberg allowed the White House to rearrange its conclusions, emphasizing uncertainties while downplaying the clear evidence of damage. When panel members like Gene Likens protested these unauthorized changes, Nierenberg claimed confusion about the process, though documents later revealed he had a telecopied note reading "Changes wanted by Keyworth" (Reagan's science advisor). The media increasingly covered acid rain as an unsettled question, with business publications like Fortune and BusinessWeek questioning the scientific consensus. When soil scientist Edward Krug argued that soil acidification might be natural-a perspective already rejected by mainstream scientists-right-wing publications eagerly promoted his views, creating lasting public confusion. It took six years and a new administration to finally pass legislation controlling acidic emissions. The 1990 Clean Air Act amendments established a "cap and trade" system that reduced sulfur dioxide by 54 percent between 1990 and 2007, while electricity prices actually decreased. The EPA later estimated that the benefits ($101-119 billion) exceeded costs ($8-9 billion) by more than ten times-proving Singer's claim of a "billion-dollar solution to a million-dollar problem" completely wrong.

从《贩卖怀疑的人》中收获更多

每日获取新洞见，探索 10 万+ 条课程内容
文字实时高亮，与音频同步
保存你的书库，在所有设备上随时访问

第 5 章

The Ozone War: Science Under Siege

The battle over ozone depletion represents one of the most significant environmental controversies of the 20th century, further refining industry's doubt strategy. When F. Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina made their groundbreaking discovery in 1974 that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) could destroy stratospheric ozone, they faced immediate and aggressive pushback. The chemical industry, led by manufacturers like DuPont, launched a multi-pronged attack challenging every aspect of their theory. They argued that CFCs, being heavy molecules, couldn't possibly reach the stratosphere, wouldn't break down if they did reach such heights, and that natural sources like volcanic chlorine were the real culprit in any observed ozone depletion. The scientific community responded with systematic research that methodically disproved each objection. Through a series of sophisticated atmospheric measurements and laboratory experiments, scientists demonstrated conclusively that CFCs did indeed reach the stratosphere, traveling upward through complex atmospheric mixing processes. They showed that these compounds broke down precisely at the predicted altitudes when exposed to high-energy ultraviolet radiation. The definitive evidence came when James Anderson's team detected significant levels of chlorine monoxide in the stratosphere-a chemical fingerprint that could only be explained by CFC breakdown, effectively proving that these compounds were actively participating in ozone destruction. The discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole in 1985 by British Antarctic Survey scientists Joe Farman, Brian Gardiner, and Jonathan Shanklin marked a turning point in public awareness. This massive seasonal depletion of ozone over Antarctica became front-page news worldwide. NASA and NOAA responded by launching major research expeditions that revealed the complex chemistry at work: the extreme cold of Antarctic winters produced polar stratospheric clouds whose ice crystals served as catalysts, dramatically accelerating chlorine-releasing reactions. Meanwhile, the polar vortex-a circular pattern of winds-trapped this cold air, creating a perfect environment for ozone destruction at rates far exceeding any previous model predictions. The 1987 Montreal Protocol emerged as a groundbreaking international response, establishing the first adaptive regulatory framework for addressing a global environmental threat. The protocol required periodic scientific reassessment and allowed for adjustments based on new evidence. This flexibility proved crucial as mounting evidence revealed ozone depletion extending beyond Antarctica into northern midlatitudes, where the majority of Earth's population resided. This expanding threat eventually convinced even DuPont, the world's largest CFC manufacturer, to announce a phase-out of CFC production. Despite this scientific consensus and industrial acquiescence, prominent contrarian S. Fred Singer maintained his opposition through a sophisticated counternarrative campaign. He repeatedly circulated the false claim that Gordon Dobson had discovered the ozone hole in 1956, suggesting it was a natural phenomenon. Singer also continued to assert that stratospheric chlorine came "mostly from natural sources," despite clear evidence to the contrary. When Rowland, Molina, and Paul Crutzen were awarded the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for their work on stratospheric ozone chemistry, Singer attacked the Nobel committee, claiming they had made a "political statement" rather than recognizing genuine scientific achievement.

第 6 章

Secondhand Smoke: The EPA Under Attack

By the mid-1980s, nearly everyone knew smoking caused cancer, yet tobacco industry executives sustained doubt with help from scientists providing "expert" testimony in court cases. In 1986, a new Surgeon General's report concluding that secondhand smoke could cause cancer in nonsmokers created industry panic, as it shifted smoking from a personal choice to an action that harmed innocent bystanders. The industry responded with creative disinformation campaigns, paying celebrities to use tobacco products in films, creating "special projects" to develop countervailing evidence, and recruiting scientists through "Project Whitecoat" to maintain controversy. Their top objective, with a $16 million budget, was "to maintain the controversy about tobacco smoke in public and scientific forums." When the EPA released its 1992 report classifying environmental tobacco smoke as a Class A carcinogen responsible for 3,000 lung cancer deaths annually, Seitz and Singer led the counterattack. Singer collaborated with Philip Morris's PR firm to write articles claiming the EPA used "junk science" and "rigged the numbers" by accepting a 90 percent confidence level rather than the standard 95 percent. The EPA defended its approach by explaining that their linear dose-response model followed both scientific practice and Ockham's razor: use the simplest theory without unnecessary complications. When evidence shows something is harmful, common sense suggests more exposure means more risk. Singer's recycling of arguments from debates about nuclear power and pesticides revealed this wasn't really about secondhand smoke science. For Philip Morris, which reported record profits in 1995, the goal was protecting their bottom line. But for scientists like Singer and Seitz, the motivation was ideological-an implacable hostility to regulation as "the road to Socialism" and a commitment to free market fundamentalism.

边听边看，每个词都清晰呈现

轻松跟读，《贩卖怀疑的人》中的每个词都会随音频实时高亮。

第 7 章

Climate Change: The Ultimate Battleground

Many Americans believe global warming is a relatively recent scientific concern. Yet scientific research on carbon dioxide and climate dates back 150 years, beginning with John Tyndall's establishment of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, followed by Svante Arrhenius's realization that fossil fuel burning could alter climate. By 1979, the scientific understanding was already robust. The Jasons, an elite scientific committee, found that doubling atmospheric CO2 would increase average surface temperatures by 2.4C, with polar regions warming 10-12C. A National Academy of Sciences panel under Jule Charney concluded that doubling CO2 would likely cause about 3C warming, a finding remarkably consistent with today's estimates four decades later. When NASA scientist James Hansen testified to Congress in 1988 that global warming had begun and would accelerate without emissions reductions, the Marshall Institute found a new mission: challenging climate science. Their 1989 white paper, authored by Jastrow, Seitz, and Nierenberg, claimed warming didn't track CO2 increases because most warming occurred before 1940, followed by cooling through 1975. They argued this pattern matched solar activity cycles rather than carbon dioxide emissions. However, they had cherry-picked data, showing only one diagram from Hansen's research while omitting others that demonstrated the combined effects of CO2, volcanoes, and solar activity. The IPCC's first assessment in 1990 explicitly rejected this solar argument, explaining that even maximum solar variability would be "swamped by the enhanced greenhouse effect." Singer launched a different attack by attempting to co-opt Roger Revelle's reputation. Revelle-Al Gore's former Harvard mentor and a pioneer of climate science-became Singer's unwitting tool when Singer approached the 81-year-old scientist about collaborating on an article shortly before Revelle suffered a massive heart attack. While Revelle was hospitalized and later recuperating, Singer sent him multiple drafts, eventually publishing a paper with Revelle as second author that contained the phrase "the scientific base for a greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action"-words Singer had used in his own earlier publications, not Revelle's. After Revelle's death in July 1991, the paper was weaponized during the 1992 election campaign. Journalist Gregg Easterbrook cited it to attack Al Gore, misleadingly attributing Singer's skeptical conclusions to Revelle himself. The Revelle family and his Scripps colleagues were infuriated by this misrepresentation, but their attempts to correct the record reached only scientific audiences while the misrepresentations circulated widely.

第 8 章

Rachel Carson: Rewriting Environmental History

The pattern of doubt merchandising extended to a particularly aggressive posthumous attack on Rachel Carson, whose landmark 1962 book "Silent Spring" had meticulously documented the ecological dangers of DDT and other synthetic pesticides. By the early 2000s, free market think tanks and industry-backed organizations were portraying Carson as "worse than Hitler," claiming she was responsible for millions of malaria deaths in developing nations through her supposed role in DDT's worldwide banning. This campaign, orchestrated through various media outlets and policy papers, represented a calculated attempt to discredit one of environmentalism's founding figures. This revisionist narrative contained several significant falsehoods that distorted both Carson's actual positions and historical facts. First, Carson never called for an outright ban on DDT - instead, she advocated for more careful, targeted use and warned against broadcast spraying that allowed the chemical to enter the entire food chain. Second, the EPA's 1972 ban applied only to agricultural uses within the United States, explicitly exempting public health applications including malaria control programs worldwide. Third, DDT had already lost much of its effectiveness against malaria-carrying mosquitoes due to resistance development in many regions before any regulatory restrictions were implemented. In fact, this resistance problem had been documented in scientific literature as early as the 1950s. Recent medical research has powerfully validated Carson's original concerns about DDT's health impacts. Dr. Barbara Cohn's groundbreaking epidemiological work identified women from a 1960s Kaiser Permanente medical study who had been exposed to DDT during its peak usage period. Preserved blood samples from that era were reanalyzed using modern techniques and compared with breast cancer rates over the following decades. The results were striking - women with high serum DDT levels showed a fivefold increase in breast cancer risk. Additional studies have linked DDT exposure to other health problems including reproductive disorders, developmental delays in children, and various cancers. The construction of this revisionist DDT history reveals the true agenda behind the attacks - defending extreme free market ideology by attempting to deny not just scientific facts but historical ones as well. The coordinated assault on Carson's legacy serves a broader purpose: to discredit the environmental movement's successful push toward legal regulation of dangerous chemicals. If Carson could be painted as fundamentally wrong about DDT, then government intervention in markets through environmental protection could be portrayed as unnecessary and harmful. This campaign demonstrates how historical revisionism becomes a tool for contemporary political battles over regulation and corporate accountability. The controversy also highlights how Carson's actual message - advocating for careful study of environmental impacts and judicious use of chemical controls - was deliberately misrepresented to serve ideological ends. Her nuanced position calling for balanced approaches has been vindicated by modern research, while the simplistic "DDT is harmless" narrative promoted by her critics has been thoroughly debunked by scientific evidence.

从《贩卖怀疑的人》中收获更多

每日获取新洞见，探索 10 万+ 条课程内容
文字实时高亮，与音频同步
保存你的书库，在所有设备上随时访问

第 9 章

The Denial Machine: How It Works

The merchants of doubt created a scientific Potemkin village-an elaborate facade of institutes, conferences, and publications that mimicked legitimate science without adhering to its rigorous standards. The tobacco industry pioneered this approach, establishing sophisticated-sounding organizations like the Tobacco Institute and Center for Indoor Air Research. These entities sponsored lavish conferences, funded selective research projects, and even created pseudo-scientific journals complete with superficial peer review processes. The Council for Tobacco Research, for instance, distributed millions in research grants while carefully avoiding studies that might implicate smoking in disease. The George C. Marshall Institute refined these tactics for broader use, producing technically dense reports targeting environmental and public health regulations. These documents, while impressive in appearance and reaching influential policymakers including presidential advisors, systematically bypassed traditional scientific peer review. Their reports often cherry-picked data or presented misleading interpretations of legitimate research. A striking example occurred when Fred Seitz, leveraging his prestigious background, circulated the Oregon Petition "refuting" global warming. The petition was packaged with a paper deliberately formatted to resemble proceedings from the National Academy of Sciences, forcing the Academy to issue an unprecedented statement disavowing any connection to the initiative. This sophisticated doubt machine received substantial backing from a network of ideologically aligned think tanks funded by conservative foundations including the Sarah Scaife Foundation, John M. Olin Foundation, and Adolph Coors Foundation, alongside corporate interests like Exxon Mobil. Investigative journalist Chris Mooney revealed how Exxon Mobil alone channeled over $8 million to forty different organizations working to challenge climate science consensus. These financial relationships were often obscured through complex funding arrangements and intermediary organizations, making the true sources difficult to trace. A telling shift occurred in the scientific output of these merchants of doubt around the 1970s. Citation analysis through Web of Science reveals that Frederick Seitz's original research publications effectively ceased around 1970, after which he produced primarily book reviews and opinion pieces. Similarly, Fred Singer's publication record shows substantial physics research in the 1950s-60s, but pivoted sharply around 1970 toward commentary pieces and letters to editors. Despite their credentials as physicists, these individuals increasingly spoke outside their areas of expertise, offering opinions on epidemiology, ecology, atmospheric chemistry, and climate modeling - fields requiring specialized knowledge they did not possess. This pattern of abandoning peer-reviewed research in favor of public commentary became a hallmark of the doubt industry's approach. The strategy proved remarkably effective, creating an alternative scientific universe complete with its own experts, publications, and conferences - all designed to manufacture uncertainty around well-established scientific findings that threatened powerful commercial interests.

第 10 章

Rethinking Science in a Democracy

Our fundamental problem is an erroneous view of science. We expect science to provide absolute certainty, but history consistently shows that science actually provides expert consensus based on accumulated evidence and rigorous testing. When scientific questions are truly settled, like the earth's roundness or gravity's existence, there aren't "sides" anymore, just accepted knowledge. Yet journalism's "he said/she said" framework ignores this reality, giving equal weight to individual contrarians and the collective wisdom of thousands of scientists, creating false equivalencies that mislead the public. Modern science is fundamentally a collective enterprise, not the work of isolated heroic individuals, despite popular narratives about lone geniuses. Even breakthrough discoveries like Einstein's relativity theory or Watson and Crick's DNA structure required verification and refinement by the broader scientific community. Science's basic principle remains unchanged for centuries: ideas must be supported by empirical evidence and subjected to rigorous peer review. Until claims pass this judgment through multiple independent verifications, they remain merely claims. Our contrarians, frustrated by rejection within scientific channels, took their claims directly to public opinion, stepping outside the established protocols that have tested scientific veracity for four hundred years. We all make decisions under uncertainty daily-buying cars, houses, choosing insurance, selecting medical treatments-without letting uncertainty paralyze us. As sociologist Michael Smithson notes, all social relations are fundamentally trust relations-we trust doctors to diagnose illness, mechanics to fix cars, pilots to fly planes safely-things we can't do ourselves. Similarly, we must trust scientific experts, while carefully evaluating their credentials, research quality, peer review venues, and funding sources. This trust isn't blind faith but reasoned confidence based on demonstrated expertise and institutional safeguards. When scientific communities organize to judge matters collectively (like the IPCC for climate change or the WHO for public health), we should take their conclusions seriously rather than dismissing them because of isolated dissenters, especially those with obvious ideological agendas or economic interests at stake. While individual scientists can be wrong, the collective judgment of scientific communities, refined through debate and evidence, provides our best available knowledge. Though science provides no absolute certainty, its robust track record of achievements-from vaccines to semiconductors to weather forecasting-provides a solid basis for action. As epidemiologist Sir Austin Bradford Hill noted in his landmark work on causation, scientific work is always incomplete, but this "does not confer upon us a freedom to ignore the knowledge we already have, or to postpone the action that it appears to demand at a given time."

★★★★★

你已读完《贩卖怀疑的人》

深受 100 万+ 学习者喜爱

“坚持使用 23 天了，我每天都会打开它。它现在已经成为我的日常习惯。”

jayallen

《贩卖怀疑的人》核心主题

manufactured scientific uncertainty
corporate disinformation tactics
weaponized skepticism
science policy manipulation
ideological environmental denial

《贩卖怀疑的人》经典语录

Doubt is our product.
More research is needed.
Doubt is also the limit of our 'product'...
The science isn't settled.
Acid rain was real, human-caused, and damaging.

《贩卖怀疑的人》主要人物

Frederick SeitzPhysicist and former president of the NAS
S. Fred SingerFormer director of the Weather Satellite Service
William NierenbergFormer director of Scripps Institution
Robert JastrowFounder of NASA's Goddard Institute
Naomi OreskesCo-author and historian of science

关于作者

Naomi Oreskes 和 Erik M. Conway 是科学史学家，也是备受赞誉的《贩卖怀疑的人：少数科学家如何掩盖从烟草烟雾到全球变暖等问题的真相》（Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming）一书的作者。他们将严谨的学术研究与公共参与相结合，揭露了那些破坏科学共识的系统性企图。

Oreskes 是哈佛大学教授兼地质学家，因其在气候变化否定论方面的开创性研究而声名鹊起，这些研究曾在阿尔·戈尔的《难以忽视的真相》中被引用。Conway 是美国国家航空航天局（NASA）喷气推进实验室的驻馆历史学家，他在科学、政策与工业之间的相互作用方面拥有深厚的专业知识。

他们的非虚构著作，包括《西方文明的崩溃》（The Collapse of Western Civilization）和《大神话》（The Big Myth），剖析了企业对公共舆论的影响，强调了自由市场意识形态对环境政策的冲击。《贩卖怀疑的人》于 2014 年被改编为纪录片，探讨了各行业如何利用科学的不确定性来推迟对烟草相关疾病和全球变暖等危机的行动。该书已成为科学传播的基石，因其细致的研究和引人入胜的叙述而广受赞誉。

他们的最新合作作品《大神话》（2023年）进一步审视了美国文化中反政府情绪的根源。Oreskes 和 Conway 的作品已被翻译成 20 多种语言，并曾在《纽约时报》和美国国家公共广播电台（NPR）等主流媒体上刊登。

下载《贩卖怀疑的人》摘要

免费获取《贩卖怀疑的人》摘要的 PDF 或 EPUB 版本。可打印或随时离线阅读。

用户还喜欢

Steven E. Koonin

Ben Goldacre

Sharyl Attkisson

Daniel Gardner

Michael Moss

Jane Mayer

Manufacturing consent

Edward S. Herman

Phishing for Phools

George A. Akerlof & Robert J. Shiller

关于本书的常见问题

发现更多

学习计划

Truth, Trust, and Public Reason

In an era of deep polarization and digital manipulation, understanding the architecture of truth is a vital survival skill. This plan is designed for citizens, professionals, and students who want to navigate modern information ecosystems with skepticism and intellectual integrity.

1 h 12 m•3 章节

学习计划

Books on production-consumption disconnect

This learning plan reveals how our separation from production processes drives mindless overconsumption and environmental harm. It's ideal for conscious consumers, sustainability advocates, and anyone seeking to develop more intentional relationships with material goods.

5 h 11 m•4 章节

学习计划

The Management Shadow: Taleb/Kahneman/Greene

In an era of radical uncertainty, traditional management frameworks often fail because they ignore human irrationality and the impact of rare events. This plan is designed for leaders and strategists who want to master the hidden psychological and systemic forces that govern success and power.

4 h 43 m•4 章节

学习计划

Master Influence, Dark Tactics & Defense

This curriculum is essential for professionals and leaders who need to navigate complex social dynamics and protect themselves from bad-faith actors. It bridges the gap between ethical persuasion and defensive psychology, making it ideal for anyone looking to master high-stakes communication and personal autonomy.

5 h 54 m•4 章节

学习计划

The Strategist's Guide to Clear Thinking

In an era of information overload, the ability to think structurally and argue ethically is a critical leadership asset. This guide is designed for professionals and decision-makers who need to strip away noise, validate evidence, and lead through high-level persuasion and debate.

2 h•4 章节

学习计划

Thinking, Fast and Slow: Decision Toolkit

In an era of information overload, understanding the mechanics of human judgment is a critical superpower for leaders and professionals. This toolkit is essential for anyone looking to minimize cognitive errors and master the psychological drivers behind every choice we make.

3 h 15 m•4 章节

学习计划

Combat logical fallacies

In an era of misinformation, the ability to think critically is a vital survival skill. This plan is designed for professionals, students, and citizens who want to sharpen their decision-making and resist manipulation in complex public and private debates.

5 h 25 m•4 章节

学习计划

Understand & influence human decision-making

In an era of information overload, understanding the hidden mechanics of the mind is a critical competitive advantage. This plan is ideal for leaders, marketers, and designers looking to leverage behavioral science to drive better results and ethical engagement.

4 h 40 m•4 章节

由哥伦比亚大学校友在旧金山创建

LOVED BY

1,000,000+ curious minds.

4.7

avg rating

1M+ learners

"Instead of endless scrolling, I just hit play on BeFreed. It saves me so much time."

@Moemenn

"I never knew where to start with nonfiction—BeFreed’s book lists turned into podcasts gave me a clear path."

@Chloe, Solo founder, LA

117

"Perfect balance between learning and entertainment. Finished ‘Thinking, Fast and Slow’ on my commute this week."

@Raaaaaachelw

"Crazy how much I learned while walking the dog. BeFreed = small habits → big gains."

@Matt, YC alum

108

"Reading used to feel like a chore. Now it’s just part of my lifestyle."

@Erin, Investment Banking Associate , NYC

254

"Feels effortless compared to reading. I’ve finished 6 books this month already."

@djmikemoore

"BeFreed turned my guilty doomscrolling into something that feels productive and inspiring."

@Pitiful

4.5K

"BeFreed turned my commute into learning time. 20-min podcasts are perfect for finishing books I never had time for."

@SofiaP

"BeFreed replaced my podcast queue. Imagine Spotify for books — that’s it. 🙌"

@Jaded_Falcon

201

"It is great for me to learn something from the book without reading it."

@OojasSalunke

"The themed book list podcasts help me connect ideas across authors—like a guided audio journey."

@Leo, Law Student, UPenn

483

"Makes me feel smarter every time before going to work"

@Cashflowbubu

查看更多网络上关于 BeFreed 的讨论

由哥伦比亚大学校友在旧金山创建

LOVED BY

1,000,000+ curious minds.

4.7

avg rating

1M+ learners

"Instead of endless scrolling, I just hit play on BeFreed. It saves me so much time."

@Moemenn

"I never knew where to start with nonfiction—BeFreed’s book lists turned into podcasts gave me a clear path."

@Chloe, Solo founder, LA

117

"Perfect balance between learning and entertainment. Finished ‘Thinking, Fast and Slow’ on my commute this week."

@Raaaaaachelw

"Crazy how much I learned while walking the dog. BeFreed = small habits → big gains."

@Matt, YC alum

108

"Reading used to feel like a chore. Now it’s just part of my lifestyle."

@Erin, Investment Banking Associate , NYC

254

"Feels effortless compared to reading. I’ve finished 6 books this month already."

@djmikemoore

"BeFreed turned my guilty doomscrolling into something that feels productive and inspiring."

@Pitiful

4.5K

"BeFreed turned my commute into learning time. 20-min podcasts are perfect for finishing books I never had time for."

@SofiaP

"BeFreed replaced my podcast queue. Imagine Spotify for books — that’s it. 🙌"

@Jaded_Falcon

201

"It is great for me to learn something from the book without reading it."

@OojasSalunke

"The themed book list podcasts help me connect ideas across authors—like a guided audio journey."

@Leo, Law Student, UPenn

483

"Makes me feel smarter every time before going to work"

@Cashflowbubu

"Instead of endless scrolling, I just hit play on BeFreed. It saves me so much time."

@Moemenn

"I never knew where to start with nonfiction—BeFreed’s book lists turned into podcasts gave me a clear path."

@Chloe, Solo founder, LA

117

"Perfect balance between learning and entertainment. Finished ‘Thinking, Fast and Slow’ on my commute this week."

@Raaaaaachelw

"Crazy how much I learned while walking the dog. BeFreed = small habits → big gains."

@Matt, YC alum

108

"Reading used to feel like a chore. Now it’s just part of my lifestyle."

@Erin, Investment Banking Associate , NYC

254

"Feels effortless compared to reading. I’ve finished 6 books this month already."

@djmikemoore

"BeFreed turned my guilty doomscrolling into something that feels productive and inspiring."

@Pitiful

4.5K

"BeFreed turned my commute into learning time. 20-min podcasts are perfect for finishing books I never had time for."

@SofiaP

"BeFreed replaced my podcast queue. Imagine Spotify for books — that’s it. 🙌"

@Jaded_Falcon

201

"It is great for me to learn something from the book without reading it."

@OojasSalunke

"The themed book list podcasts help me connect ideas across authors—like a guided audio journey."

@Leo, Law Student, UPenn

483

"Makes me feel smarter every time before going to work"

@Cashflowbubu

"Instead of endless scrolling, I just hit play on BeFreed. It saves me so much time."

@Moemenn

"I never knew where to start with nonfiction—BeFreed’s book lists turned into podcasts gave me a clear path."

@Chloe, Solo founder, LA

117

"Perfect balance between learning and entertainment. Finished ‘Thinking, Fast and Slow’ on my commute this week."

@Raaaaaachelw

"Crazy how much I learned while walking the dog. BeFreed = small habits → big gains."

@Matt, YC alum

108

"Reading used to feel like a chore. Now it’s just part of my lifestyle."

@Erin, Investment Banking Associate , NYC

254

"Feels effortless compared to reading. I’ve finished 6 books this month already."

@djmikemoore

"BeFreed turned my guilty doomscrolling into something that feels productive and inspiring."

@Pitiful

4.5K

"BeFreed turned my commute into learning time. 20-min podcasts are perfect for finishing books I never had time for."

@SofiaP

"BeFreed replaced my podcast queue. Imagine Spotify for books — that’s it. 🙌"

@Jaded_Falcon

201

"It is great for me to learn something from the book without reading it."

@OojasSalunke

"The themed book list podcasts help me connect ideas across authors—like a guided audio journey."

@Leo, Law Student, UPenn

483

"Makes me feel smarter every time before going to work"

@Cashflowbubu

查看更多网络上关于 BeFreed 的讨论

开启你的学习之旅，就是现在

第 5 章

贩卖怀疑的人

概述《贩卖怀疑的人》概述

一本书，多种聆听方式。

The Science of Deception: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth

The Tobacco Strategy: Doubt as a Product

边听边看，每个词都清晰呈现

Cold Warriors: From Strategic Defense to Environmental Skepticism

Acid Rain: The Rehearsal for Climate Denial

从 《贩卖怀疑的人》中收获更多

The Ozone War: Science Under Siege

Secondhand Smoke: The EPA Under Attack

边听边看，每个词都清晰呈现

Climate Change: The Ultimate Battleground

Rachel Carson: Rewriting Environmental History

从 《贩卖怀疑的人》中收获更多

The Denial Machine: How It Works

Rethinking Science in a Democracy

你已读完 《贩卖怀疑的人》

《贩卖怀疑的人》核心主题

《贩卖怀疑的人》经典语录

《贩卖怀疑的人》主要人物

关于作者

下载《贩卖怀疑的人》摘要

用户还喜欢

关于本书的常见问题

What is Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes about?

Who should read Merchants of Doubt?

Is Merchants of Doubt worth reading?

What tactics do the "merchants of doubt" use to obscure scientific truth?

发现更多

1,000,000+ curious minds.

1,000,000+ curious minds.

一本书，多种聆听方式。

The Science of Deception: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth

The Tobacco Strategy: Doubt as a Product

边听边看，每个词都清晰呈现

Cold Warriors: From Strategic Defense to Environmental Skepticism

Acid Rain: The Rehearsal for Climate Denial

从 《贩卖怀疑的人》中收获更多

The Ozone War: Science Under Siege

Secondhand Smoke: The EPA Under Attack

边听边看，每个词都清晰呈现

Climate Change: The Ultimate Battleground

Rachel Carson: Rewriting Environmental History

从 《贩卖怀疑的人》中收获更多

The Denial Machine: How It Works

Rethinking Science in a Democracy

你已读完 《贩卖怀疑的人》

用户还喜欢

发现更多

《贩卖怀疑的人》概述

从《贩卖怀疑的人》中收获更多

从《贩卖怀疑的人》中收获更多

你已读完《贩卖怀疑的人》

从《贩卖怀疑的人》中收获更多

从《贩卖怀疑的人》中收获更多

你已读完《贩卖怀疑的人》