People are “consistently inconsistent” in reasoning about controversial topics(digest.bps.org.uk)
digest.bps.org.uk
People are “consistently inconsistent” in reasoning about controversial topics
https://digest.bps.org.uk/2018/11/13/people-are-consistently-inconsistent-in-how-they-reason-about-controversial-scientific-topics/
196 comments
You can develop a (mental) trust chain.
Verify yourself that a few people seem both well-informed and unbiased, using your personal experience or research. Put a decent amount of trust in them.
When a person you trust appears to have high regard for another person's opinion, add some trust to that other person.
When you notice someone says dumb or biased stuff, reduce your trust in them by a lot.
Continue like that for years, mixing some independent verification here and there, and you'll have some idea of what's going on.
Verify yourself that a few people seem both well-informed and unbiased, using your personal experience or research. Put a decent amount of trust in them.
When a person you trust appears to have high regard for another person's opinion, add some trust to that other person.
When you notice someone says dumb or biased stuff, reduce your trust in them by a lot.
Continue like that for years, mixing some independent verification here and there, and you'll have some idea of what's going on.
If you wanted to talk about core CS ideas, would you just ask anyone? If you knew you were making progress on an academic discourse, would you think to talk about your readings with just anyone?
As soon as you want to make deep progress on anything you need to talk with people who match you on preparation and energy. This is true even on HN and core CS topics.
As soon as you want to make deep progress on anything you need to talk with people who match you on preparation and energy. This is true even on HN and core CS topics.
> I don't believe everything for the right reasons
I can't imagine how it would be any other way. Only on the internet can people be experts on everything. The rest of us just kind of wing it and hope for the best.
I can't imagine how it would be any other way. Only on the internet can people be experts on everything. The rest of us just kind of wing it and hope for the best.
When I dont know about something and someone has a strong opinion, I asked to be explained to. Then I ask critical questions designed to undercut their arguments until I am satisfied. This is a way to ckme across as intelligent without having to know about everything.
On something like global warming, I find it easy to trust the Scientific Method, rather than individual papers or individual scientists (or worse, the media translation thereof). The core counter-explanation to the scientific consensus is "Scientists are greedy liars in a giant conspiracy to get rich on research grants", which I find, um, problematic. And, while the phrasing may get prettier, that's what most of these arguments lead to, what most of the people who reject global warming believe.
In a related manner, I tend to judge ideas by who agrees with them. Be careful who you're standing with, they can tell you a lot about the validity of where you're standing. (Or, as a friend put it about politics, "If the racists think the candidate is a racist, the candidate is probably a racist".)
So, for something like global warming, if you're standing with people who believe in and work within the scientific method, you're probably good (assuming you believe in science), and if you're standing with people who believe the world was created in seven days 5500 years ago and corporations whose core business model is to put greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere... well.
In a related manner, I tend to judge ideas by who agrees with them. Be careful who you're standing with, they can tell you a lot about the validity of where you're standing. (Or, as a friend put it about politics, "If the racists think the candidate is a racist, the candidate is probably a racist".)
So, for something like global warming, if you're standing with people who believe in and work within the scientific method, you're probably good (assuming you believe in science), and if you're standing with people who believe the world was created in seven days 5500 years ago and corporations whose core business model is to put greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere... well.
> "If the racists think the candidate is a racist, the candidate is probably a racist"
I honestly think ideas like this are one of the most problematic beliefs in the current political discourse. This type of thinking only means we look less and less at the merits of someone's arguments and more and more at the tribe they associate with, or even worse the tribe that chooses to associate with them.
We have absolutely no control over these associations. If some nutjob chooses to support my cause does that somehow means my arguments are less valid?
I honestly think ideas like this are one of the most problematic beliefs in the current political discourse. This type of thinking only means we look less and less at the merits of someone's arguments and more and more at the tribe they associate with, or even worse the tribe that chooses to associate with them.
We have absolutely no control over these associations. If some nutjob chooses to support my cause does that somehow means my arguments are less valid?
You’re supposed to soundly distance yourself from them in very unequivocally language and NOT TAKE THEIR MONEY. For my consistency, I dislike politicians of any sort that take corporate donor money. I dislike money being such an important factor in politics these days instead of oh.... how candidates actually vote. I can’t tell what a candidate actually believes when things came down to it versus what their constituents would do. I know that Joe Biden has said before that while he personally doesn’t believe in abortion he believes his constituents want the freedom / choice in their communities. This is tricky. It gets much more clear-cut for me when the only possible motivations are purely based around corporate interests (“jobs” are almost a code word for corporate interests, heck even the GOP pivoted to using “job creator” instead of using corporations around the Romney-Obama election period).
>I dislike money being such an important factor in politics these days instead of oh.... how candidates actually vote.
There's a large empirical literature on the issue and the conclusion is that money is more or less irrelevant in politics. Political campaigns are entirely ineffective.
The Minimal Persuasive Effects of Campaign Contact in General Elections: Evidence from 49 Field Experiments [0]
"First, a systematic meta-analysis of 40 field experiments estimates an average effect of zero in general elections. Second, we present nine original field experiments that increase the statistical evidence in the literature about the persuasive effects of personal contact 10-fold. These experiments’ average effect is also zero."
Does Money Buy Votes? The Case of Self-Financed Gubernatorial Candidates, 1998–2008 [1]
"The apparent effect of spending on votes is severely inflated by omitted variable bias: the best candidates also happen to be the best fundraisers. [...] self-financed spending has no statistical effect on election results"
[0] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3042867
[1] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11109-012-9193-1
There's a large empirical literature on the issue and the conclusion is that money is more or less irrelevant in politics. Political campaigns are entirely ineffective.
The Minimal Persuasive Effects of Campaign Contact in General Elections: Evidence from 49 Field Experiments [0]
"First, a systematic meta-analysis of 40 field experiments estimates an average effect of zero in general elections. Second, we present nine original field experiments that increase the statistical evidence in the literature about the persuasive effects of personal contact 10-fold. These experiments’ average effect is also zero."
Does Money Buy Votes? The Case of Self-Financed Gubernatorial Candidates, 1998–2008 [1]
"The apparent effect of spending on votes is severely inflated by omitted variable bias: the best candidates also happen to be the best fundraisers. [...] self-financed spending has no statistical effect on election results"
[0] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3042867
[1] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11109-012-9193-1
Surprisingly, neither of those papers appear to have anything to do with your point that "money is more or less irrelevant in politics". The first seems about personal contact, the second whether where the money came from made any difference, not whether they had any.
When there's no candidate, it's still money that wins initiatives in the western USA. I don't care what that particular study concluded over 40 races of self-financed Gov candidates because it's not compelling. Existing studies of interest that acknowledge definitive correlation only differ in how to measure the degree and where diminishing returns occur.
> There's a large empirical literature on the issue and the conclusion is that money is more or less irrelevant in politics.
That's simply nonsense.
> There's a large empirical literature on the issue and the conclusion is that money is more or less irrelevant in politics.
That's simply nonsense.
Not everything that happens in law is done through voting though and thus the legislation and lobbying done is studied. I remember someone publishing some results showing that for as little as $50k to a politician’s campaign you can get a return on investment many times over depending upon your industry. In fact, I’d argue the most important things that happen in government is what we do not get to vote on, which is part of why voting is so important - the elected officials fill in the differential.
About that..
"We find no evidence that corporations benefit from electing their favored candidate, and we can statistically reject effect sizes greater than 0.4 percent of firm value. Contrary to the concerns of many observers, corporate campaign contributions do not appear to buy significant political favors."
http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/spenkuch/researc...
"We find no evidence that corporations benefit from electing their favored candidate, and we can statistically reject effect sizes greater than 0.4 percent of firm value. Contrary to the concerns of many observers, corporate campaign contributions do not appear to buy significant political favors."
http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/spenkuch/researc...
Joe Biden's position is a good example of what I'm talking about. He can say "personally opposed", but the pro-choice people believe he's pro-choice anyway, and the pro-life people also believe he's pro-choice anyway. The language isn't fooling anyone.
He is pro-choice, and he's not trying to fool anyone. He believe people should have the right to make the decision for themselves whether or not to have an abortion. For himself, he's made the decision he wouldn't want his partner to have one. There's nothing inconsistent or nefarious in that.
I find that kind of honesty refreshing in a politician, when they can set aside their own personal beliefs and actually represent the people who elected them.
I find that kind of honesty refreshing in a politician, when they can set aside their own personal beliefs and actually represent the people who elected them.
> and NOT TAKE THEIR MONEY
So by logical extension, a highly virtuous person would ... donate money to racist causes? Because that is the exact opposite of taking their donations.
There is always going to be one politician who has policies that are more racist-friendly than the other. Targeting specific groups for exclusion from the political process, even at the social level, is a recipe for disaster. We want less of that, not more.
At most, ask for transparency about where the donations are sourced from so the polity can talk about it.
So by logical extension, a highly virtuous person would ... donate money to racist causes? Because that is the exact opposite of taking their donations.
There is always going to be one politician who has policies that are more racist-friendly than the other. Targeting specific groups for exclusion from the political process, even at the social level, is a recipe for disaster. We want less of that, not more.
At most, ask for transparency about where the donations are sourced from so the polity can talk about it.
I think devonkim meant that politicians DO in fact have control over which deplorable supporters they get associated with in the public eye -- the politicians who accept donations from racist organizations are the racist politicians.
Firstly, that is not what devonkim said, so he probably doesn't mean that. Secondly, that is also wrong.
Trump is a good example of this sort of thing - a reporter just has to look at him sideways to get told that black unemployment is at a record low, and over the last 2 years he's pulled a couple of pro-black political stunts. About half the media will still call him a racist, because he has _no_ control over who he gets associated with.
I expect this point would come up in a debate so I'll address it - a 'Muslim travel ban' is only racist to someone who is very confused about what 'race' means. Given the pain Bush & Obama have delivered to the Middle East in particular, and the Muslim world in general, this is a distasteful but certainly not inconsistent choice for US foreign policy.
> politicians who accept donations from racist organizations are the racist politicians.
Maybe in the abstract, but who are there "racist organizations" that are making political donations to influence politicans? Assuming we are still talking US politics, the last scandal [0] involving the KKK (only racist organisation I know of) was in 1991! Everything since is literally throwaway one-line comments of no real significance.
I don't think racist organisations are active in politics, they'd make candidates unelectable.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_United_States_politi...
Trump is a good example of this sort of thing - a reporter just has to look at him sideways to get told that black unemployment is at a record low, and over the last 2 years he's pulled a couple of pro-black political stunts. About half the media will still call him a racist, because he has _no_ control over who he gets associated with.
I expect this point would come up in a debate so I'll address it - a 'Muslim travel ban' is only racist to someone who is very confused about what 'race' means. Given the pain Bush & Obama have delivered to the Middle East in particular, and the Muslim world in general, this is a distasteful but certainly not inconsistent choice for US foreign policy.
> politicians who accept donations from racist organizations are the racist politicians.
Maybe in the abstract, but who are there "racist organizations" that are making political donations to influence politicans? Assuming we are still talking US politics, the last scandal [0] involving the KKK (only racist organisation I know of) was in 1991! Everything since is literally throwaway one-line comments of no real significance.
I don't think racist organisations are active in politics, they'd make candidates unelectable.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_United_States_politi...
I didn’t downvote you because it makes sense if you believe taking money from organizations you dislike would hurt them. Not going to address whether it’s helpful or not because I have no basis to say one way or the other.
The issue is that such a model is based purely on economic grounds rather than on messaging and rhetoric. Accepting money usually implies a form of condonation of the donor because the implication is that you want their assistance. If I take money from the US Nazi party and sue them back (for... something) with said money that’d be complicated but this has happened rarely enough that popular media appears to never show it. This isn’t like a corporate entity like Burger King donating money to a candidate. But it would sure be funny if Burger King donated money to PETA right?
On the flip side, refusing money is usually assumed as a form of demonstration of principle that is even stronger the lesser your wealth; that even if you are poor and destitute (as if our politicians are, yeah I know) you would rather not accept money from someone you disagree with. If a homeless person returns a large sum of money, that makes news (and an ironically higher-compensation Kickstarter / gofundme for the refuser but historically not so). Politicians and powerful people in general work off networks and money as their careers so taking money from someone when you have so much wealth / fame already carries a lot of weight there as well.
Come to think of it, I think I saw someone accept a donation and immediately donate the money to a diametrically opposed organization. But that’s rare enough that it becomes a headline is my point.
The issue is that such a model is based purely on economic grounds rather than on messaging and rhetoric. Accepting money usually implies a form of condonation of the donor because the implication is that you want their assistance. If I take money from the US Nazi party and sue them back (for... something) with said money that’d be complicated but this has happened rarely enough that popular media appears to never show it. This isn’t like a corporate entity like Burger King donating money to a candidate. But it would sure be funny if Burger King donated money to PETA right?
On the flip side, refusing money is usually assumed as a form of demonstration of principle that is even stronger the lesser your wealth; that even if you are poor and destitute (as if our politicians are, yeah I know) you would rather not accept money from someone you disagree with. If a homeless person returns a large sum of money, that makes news (and an ironically higher-compensation Kickstarter / gofundme for the refuser but historically not so). Politicians and powerful people in general work off networks and money as their careers so taking money from someone when you have so much wealth / fame already carries a lot of weight there as well.
Come to think of it, I think I saw someone accept a donation and immediately donate the money to a diametrically opposed organization. But that’s rare enough that it becomes a headline is my point.
Nutjobs agreeing with someone doesn't mean they're wrong, but it's strong evidence they might be wrong. I mean, why are the nutjobs agreeing? That's worth thinking about.
This is especially important because clever politicians can say things that seem reasonable on the surface, but aren't really.
What I'm talking about here is really an application of the Pareto Principle, the 80/20 rule. Support of nutjobs is 80% likely to be evidence of nutty ideas.
This is especially important because clever politicians can say things that seem reasonable on the surface, but aren't really.
What I'm talking about here is really an application of the Pareto Principle, the 80/20 rule. Support of nutjobs is 80% likely to be evidence of nutty ideas.
Far right nutjobs (scarequote kind and real ones) have consistently been against US involvement in middle eastern wars. One of the ways the oligarchy works is associating things they don't like, aka "fewer dumb wars" with generally unpopular ideas.
If the reasoning skills of nutjobs are already suspect, you can't take as trustworthy their endorsements.
> Nutjobs agreeing with someone doesn't mean they're wrong, but it's strong evidence they might be wrong
It doesn’t really work well for politics - it’s clear nutjobs support both major parties here in the US.
It doesn’t really work well for politics - it’s clear nutjobs support both major parties here in the US.
That's not a very convincing counterargument given that both parties seem to enthusiastically support things like corporate welfare, bogus patents, copyright and other censorship, warrentless surveilance and other domestic spying, private citizens being less well armed than goverment thugs, various horrendous dysfunctions of the health care system, and conditional welfare that cuts people off if they make any progress toward climbing out of poverty, and oppose things like nuclear power, basic income, common carriage requirements for ISPs and gigasites like facebook and google, and crackdowns on techinically-not-lying in contracts and advertisement.
I think you are misusing the term scientific method here.
Scientific method revolves around hypothesis and tests.
Global warming science is based on something else entirely.
Edit: My wording seems to have provoked confusion as to my point. Apologies. My point is that not all science utilizes the scientific method.
Scientific method revolves around hypothesis and tests.
Global warming science is based on something else entirely.
Edit: My wording seems to have provoked confusion as to my point. Apologies. My point is that not all science utilizes the scientific method.
As opposed to, say, astrophysics? Anthropology? Geology? Marine biology? Neuroscience? Paleontology? There are any number of scientific disciplines that don't have the ability to run the idealized repeatable experiment-in-a-bottle. In fact, I'd wager the number that do is probably smaller than the number that don't.
There's more to the scientific method than that.
There's more to the scientific method than that.
On what is it based then? There are computer simulations ("hypotheses"), which scientists compare with available data ("verifications"). Then verified simulation tools are applied to predict what happens depending on our behavior. The latter part is a hypothesis without a test, but if it turns out to be true, we are in trouble. It's better to trust it and take action...
Obligatory Dilbert Cartoon: http://dilbert.com/strip/2017-05-14
Of course, one must consider that the climate models that have gotten ignored over the years have generally been ignored because they were too pessimistic, despite those ones turning out to be the more accurate ones.
Please clarify. If global warming science is not based on hypothesis and tests, what is it based on? Where are you going with this?
Not OP, but from what I understand a lot of the tests where simulated and the 50' sea level rise they predicted hasn't started happening, etc.
The input data wasn't working with the expected results as well, so they came up with a flaw in the thermometers around the world which they used as justification to massage the numbers.
I dunno. I don't like pollution, but it's feeling a little hoaxie.
The input data wasn't working with the expected results as well, so they came up with a flaw in the thermometers around the world which they used as justification to massage the numbers.
I dunno. I don't like pollution, but it's feeling a little hoaxie.
Ah, the "Scientists are greedy liars in a giant conspiracy to get rich on research grants" argument.
Is that what I said?
Anyway this doesn't seem like the appropriate forum.
Anyway this doesn't seem like the appropriate forum.
So you don't consider astronomy a science?
Many of the sciences are actually better understood as more or less rigorous phenomenologies. Sometimes actually applying the formal scientific method is grossly unethical or ludicrously expensive. In cases like that the phenomenological approach lets you still develop something of an understanding of the subject matter.
From a practical perspective, it doesn't matter if the subject is technically formal science or a rigorous phenomenology, what matters is that you can engineer systems using the knowledge of the field.
From a practical perspective, it doesn't matter if the subject is technically formal science or a rigorous phenomenology, what matters is that you can engineer systems using the knowledge of the field.
We have a lot of measurements in astronomy, which often proove or disprove our hypotheses.
I believe that was the implication of the comment you're replying to, whereas the grandparent talking about "Scientific method revolves around hypothesis and tests" ... seems to have a different understanding.
The same is true in climate science.
Also, in case you haven't noticed, we're currently conducting a global scale experiment (though without a control Earth) that is already showing results.
Also, in case you haven't noticed, we're currently conducting a global scale experiment (though without a control Earth) that is already showing results.
In astronomy one aberrant observation is enough to completely revolutionize the field or destroy a previously esteemed view. It's not based on melting pot models and so a single mistake indicates something is wrong, perhaps fundamentally wrong. Consider that decades before relativity was discovered we knew very well that something was very broken because Mercury's expected orbit was off by 1/100th of a degree per century.
By contrast, how would you propose falsifying a climate model? Each decade or so we gain another chunk of data we can use to try to trial predictions of the past and, to date, they've done quite abysmally except in the most broad sense of a longterm gradual increase in temperatures. For instance from 2001 and 2010 the warming slowed to 0.11C per decade. [1] For the 17 years before then was 0.17C. There was not a single model that predicted this and, in spite of a number of after the fact hypotheses for that apparent decline, there is still no decisive answer. In a science that was more heavily dependent upon testing, this would be a ground-shaking event. But it's effect on climate science has been relatively minimal.
[1] - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/did-global-warmin...
By contrast, how would you propose falsifying a climate model? Each decade or so we gain another chunk of data we can use to try to trial predictions of the past and, to date, they've done quite abysmally except in the most broad sense of a longterm gradual increase in temperatures. For instance from 2001 and 2010 the warming slowed to 0.11C per decade. [1] For the 17 years before then was 0.17C. There was not a single model that predicted this and, in spite of a number of after the fact hypotheses for that apparent decline, there is still no decisive answer. In a science that was more heavily dependent upon testing, this would be a ground-shaking event. But it's effect on climate science has been relatively minimal.
[1] - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/did-global-warmin...
I mean, all that really proves is that climatology is more complicated than orbital mechanics.
Formal reasoning, scientific or otherwise, is all about reducing a subject to cognitive manageability. If the subject is too complicated to do that, then it shouldn't be considered in the same class as subjects where that is possible.
Or maybe we need to put more effort in, collect more data, build better models, until we can understand it.
I could build a cabin using basic reasoning. I can't build a skyscraper with just basic reasoning. Does that mean we shouldn't build skyscrapers? Or just that we should leave their design to someone who really put the effort into the "cognitive manageability" of it?
And really, when it gets down to it, a lot of the blatantly irrational opposition to the very idea of global warming comes from "cognitive manageability". For people who still think Sky Daddy made the world in six days and cavemen rode dinosaurs, the idea that their car is wrecking the atmosphere is beyond their "cognitive manageability", and it gets flatly rejected.
When I see the people who believe in the scientific method mostly lined up on one side of an issue, and people who reject the scientific method mostly lined up on the other side, it biases me. Which was my original point, that so many people have flipped out about.
I could build a cabin using basic reasoning. I can't build a skyscraper with just basic reasoning. Does that mean we shouldn't build skyscrapers? Or just that we should leave their design to someone who really put the effort into the "cognitive manageability" of it?
And really, when it gets down to it, a lot of the blatantly irrational opposition to the very idea of global warming comes from "cognitive manageability". For people who still think Sky Daddy made the world in six days and cavemen rode dinosaurs, the idea that their car is wrecking the atmosphere is beyond their "cognitive manageability", and it gets flatly rejected.
When I see the people who believe in the scientific method mostly lined up on one side of an issue, and people who reject the scientific method mostly lined up on the other side, it biases me. Which was my original point, that so many people have flipped out about.
The person you're responding to is undoubtedly referring to the ability to link cause with effect. As such "cognitive manageability" doesn't mean simple. Relativity is far from simple, but it's cognitively manageable - as is the fundamental science and engineering knowledge used when designing and ultimately constructing skyscrapers.
To give an example of something that is not cognitively manageable, aside from climate, consider the stock market. We can create a million correlations to the stock market. And these correlations themselves all hold true. And there is an immense, literally unlimited, amount of profit to be made if somebody could combine these correlations into a way that could create meaningful predictive value. There's no doubt that billions, if not trillions, of dollars have been spent in pursuit of such. Yet prediction seems to remain impossible. And that's in a field with a fraction of the variables of climate change.
To give an example of something that is not cognitively manageable, aside from climate, consider the stock market. We can create a million correlations to the stock market. And these correlations themselves all hold true. And there is an immense, literally unlimited, amount of profit to be made if somebody could combine these correlations into a way that could create meaningful predictive value. There's no doubt that billions, if not trillions, of dollars have been spent in pursuit of such. Yet prediction seems to remain impossible. And that's in a field with a fraction of the variables of climate change.
Except that global warming/climate change has now been distorted beyond recognition.
What most believe is no-longer aligned with reality:
- Read Google’s research report for the jaw-dropping reality they uncovered without intent
- Study ice core data
- Understand the concept of planetary scale rate of change
- Understand the fact —FACT— that if we had Captain Kirk erase the entire United States from this planet by trasporting everyone and everything into space CO2 accumulation would continue
- Understand that if we erased all of humanity next monday it would take somewhere in the order if 25,000 to 50,000 years for CO2 levels to drop 100ppm
- Now explain how much in resources and energy would be required to bend the planetary-scale rate-of-change of atmospheric CO2 from about 100 ppm per 50,000 years to 100 ppm in 50 year (a 1,000 x improvement over the natural process)
- Now explain how this massive amount of energy and resources will not produce massively more CO2 (and more)
- If you said “renewable energy” go back to the top and read the Google paper
This global warming thing has been turned into a political football by both sides. What’s sad is the truth isn’t at either end of the scale. Most people who now believe “the scientific truth” are believing sonething as false as those who deny it.
The Google paper is the starting point of something that should have shifted the dialog on the subject years ago. However, their conclusion doesn’t lead to easy money and raises more questions than it answers; a real invonvenient truth.
What most believe is no-longer aligned with reality:
- Read Google’s research report for the jaw-dropping reality they uncovered without intent
- Study ice core data
- Understand the concept of planetary scale rate of change
- Understand the fact —FACT— that if we had Captain Kirk erase the entire United States from this planet by trasporting everyone and everything into space CO2 accumulation would continue
- Understand that if we erased all of humanity next monday it would take somewhere in the order if 25,000 to 50,000 years for CO2 levels to drop 100ppm
- Now explain how much in resources and energy would be required to bend the planetary-scale rate-of-change of atmospheric CO2 from about 100 ppm per 50,000 years to 100 ppm in 50 year (a 1,000 x improvement over the natural process)
- Now explain how this massive amount of energy and resources will not produce massively more CO2 (and more)
- If you said “renewable energy” go back to the top and read the Google paper
This global warming thing has been turned into a political football by both sides. What’s sad is the truth isn’t at either end of the scale. Most people who now believe “the scientific truth” are believing sonething as false as those who deny it.
The Google paper is the starting point of something that should have shifted the dialog on the subject years ago. However, their conclusion doesn’t lead to easy money and raises more questions than it answers; a real invonvenient truth.
So what's the jaw-dropping reality uncovered here?
Sorry, had to go do real work an the entire day flew by. Now I am on my phone and it won't let me copy and paste the relevant passage. I’ll try in the morning from my computer.
The finding, in a nutshell, was that if every source of clean energy was deployed optimally at a global scale, not only would atmospheric CO2 accumulation not stop, it would continue to rise exponentially.
Convert the entire planet to the most optimized versions of “green” energy sources and you pretty much fix nothing.
This is a sobering realization.
I urge you to read the paper, there’s a lot more detail there. They set out to prove renewables could “save the planet” only to discover it would be an exercise in futility.
The finding, in a nutshell, was that if every source of clean energy was deployed optimally at a global scale, not only would atmospheric CO2 accumulation not stop, it would continue to rise exponentially.
Convert the entire planet to the most optimized versions of “green” energy sources and you pretty much fix nothing.
This is a sobering realization.
I urge you to read the paper, there’s a lot more detail there. They set out to prove renewables could “save the planet” only to discover it would be an exercise in futility.
Thank you very much for that! I will definitely read into it. Good summary.
Here's a couple links you might be interested as well:
Audit of the main IPCC dataset: https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/52041/
More readable summary of the audit: https://arizonadailyindependent.com/2018/10/13/main-temperat...
Thanks again for the heads up on google's report!
Here's a couple links you might be interested as well:
Audit of the main IPCC dataset: https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/52041/
More readable summary of the audit: https://arizonadailyindependent.com/2018/10/13/main-temperat...
Thanks again for the heads up on google's report!
What's jaw dropping about Google's research report?
I usually like to use the argument that if climate change scientists were held by so much money you’d see a lot more rich scientists / early retirement scientists outside pharmaceuticals, medicine, and oil & gas. In contrast, I have never, ever heard of a petroleum engineer or oil & gas company manager living in poverty or struggling to find work. Where is all that George Soros money going? You can only fund so many scientists that risk their careers, Hollywood celebrity sex cults, and paid protestors of hundreds of thousands. I did some back of the napkin math with a guy at a bar using his own conspiracy theory addled numbers and it came out to at least $10 BILLION PER YEAR. That’s complete absurdity. I know the Koch brothers are worth a lot but I couldn’t ever think they’re paying that much to fund conservative crap unless they get something in return, which you absolutely can from corporations compared to uh... a lot of papers and bad wardrobes from research scientists?
A lot of it is legal tax avoidance by funneling money through foundations, non-profits, and so on. https://nccs.urban.org/data-statistics/quick-facts-about-non.... As you can see, 10 billion is a drop in the bucket.
I see people doing this, but only selectively when it benefits their existing beliefs. They look at the worse groups agreeing with those they disagree with, while ignoring the worst groups that agree with them.
It can be tough to judge by who you stand with.
I like socialism and communism. I think it can bring lots of good to the world. But people who propagate it are some of the worst people to have ever walked the earth. I think they were just mistaken. 100 million deaths with errors bars bigger than the number of people killed in the holocaust.
I don’t want to be judged for propagating social welfare just because some monsters committed horrendous acts.
Similarly in the US, I support left wing and sanders. But I won’t want to be judged as if I stand with cop killers, antifa, the Congress baseball game killer, etc.
I don’t think it’s a good idea to use this formula frankly. It’s also easy to manipulate.
I like socialism and communism. I think it can bring lots of good to the world. But people who propagate it are some of the worst people to have ever walked the earth. I think they were just mistaken. 100 million deaths with errors bars bigger than the number of people killed in the holocaust.
I don’t want to be judged for propagating social welfare just because some monsters committed horrendous acts.
Similarly in the US, I support left wing and sanders. But I won’t want to be judged as if I stand with cop killers, antifa, the Congress baseball game killer, etc.
I don’t think it’s a good idea to use this formula frankly. It’s also easy to manipulate.
Experimentally, we have found that there are two choices for who runs a country:
1) Politicians who are greedy, self-centred and ruthless.
2) Politicians who are liars, greedy, self-centred and ruthless.
The big issue with "I like communism" (for socialism the argument changes) is that any time anyone tries it they try to appoint champions of the people to their ruling class and discover they have actually got liars and monsters. This doesn't happen because they got unlucky - this is because there are no champions of the people at that level of power. There are only people with incentives, and communism really screws up the incentive structure.
The best incentive structure, by far, is free markets and democracy, even if the people who rise to the top are all scum. Somehow, "by luck" (bah, people don't get incentives) it all works really well.
1) Politicians who are greedy, self-centred and ruthless.
2) Politicians who are liars, greedy, self-centred and ruthless.
The big issue with "I like communism" (for socialism the argument changes) is that any time anyone tries it they try to appoint champions of the people to their ruling class and discover they have actually got liars and monsters. This doesn't happen because they got unlucky - this is because there are no champions of the people at that level of power. There are only people with incentives, and communism really screws up the incentive structure.
The best incentive structure, by far, is free markets and democracy, even if the people who rise to the top are all scum. Somehow, "by luck" (bah, people don't get incentives) it all works really well.
I could not disagree more with your second point.
Just because a group of misguided individuals support a specific idea, person, or ideology, doesn't mean that the thing they support should be judged based on the merits of those people. The things should be evaluated based on the individual merits of whatever it is.
Following your logic, I could easily say that Hitler was a vegetarian, so if you don't eat meat, you stand with Hitler.
Just because a group of misguided individuals support a specific idea, person, or ideology, doesn't mean that the thing they support should be judged based on the merits of those people. The things should be evaluated based on the individual merits of whatever it is.
Following your logic, I could easily say that Hitler was a vegetarian, so if you don't eat meat, you stand with Hitler.
"I could be wrong. I'm often wrong."
The guilt-by-association rule is not a hard and fast airtight conclusion. This is the stock criticism everyone is making, and it simply doesn't follow. It's evidence of a flaw, but not every bit of evidence is incontrovertible proof of whatever.
Really, doesn't anyone study logic anymore?
The guilt-by-association rule is not a hard and fast airtight conclusion. This is the stock criticism everyone is making, and it simply doesn't follow. It's evidence of a flaw, but not every bit of evidence is incontrovertible proof of whatever.
Really, doesn't anyone study logic anymore?
Perhaps people are associating your arguments with other, flawed, arguments and assuming yours are flawed as well. Might not be incontrovertible proof but it's enough to critique you.
> The core counter-explanation to the scientific consensus is "Scientists are greedy liars in a giant conspiracy to get rich on research grants", which I find, um, problematic.
I think this is a core counter-explanation for anti-vaccine and GMO as well.
I think this is a core counter-explanation for anti-vaccine and GMO as well.
Your comment is dripping with contempt and your attitude is frankly disgusting. Science is not a popularity contest... nor is science so black and white. You'll find plenty of good scientists questioning just how much humans are contributing to global warming, so long as you phrase it like that (nuanced), rather than asking flat out whether people believe in global warming or not (black and white). But what you're trying to do is demonize all scientists who don't agree with your opinions and I find it frankly disgusting. Shame on you.
Crossing into personal attack will get you banned here, regardless of how wrong another comment is or how someone's attitude seems. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow the rules when posting to HN.
beat(1)
I think the general problem behind issues like these are that the public has repeatedly been over and over deceived by autoritative voices - might it be experts, academics or government positions.
As a consequence, when people have the gut feeling that something might be off many trust that feeling over whatever truth is them presented.
Also: >> (Or, as a friend put it about politics, "If the racists think the candidate is a racist, the candidate is probably a racist".)
is just amazingly simple minded. By the same logic all dogs are Nazis just because Hitler's dog (probably) loved him and Hitler was a Nazi after all.
As a consequence, when people have the gut feeling that something might be off many trust that feeling over whatever truth is them presented.
Also: >> (Or, as a friend put it about politics, "If the racists think the candidate is a racist, the candidate is probably a racist".)
is just amazingly simple minded. By the same logic all dogs are Nazis just because Hitler's dog (probably) loved him and Hitler was a Nazi after all.
I don't think that's actually the same logic at all.
It would be the same logic if Hitler’s dog loved him for being a Nazi (killing Jews, conquering Europe), rather than because of petting and food and playtime.
Thanks for understanding my point. Hitler's dog loved him because the dog cared about food and getting petted. The bad elements were not the main priority of the dog. Just caring about one thing and not caring about the other does not make the dog a Nazi. Even more ridiculous, in the logic of OP, all other dogs who think this is behavior is okay, Nazi dogs.
> caring about one thing and not caring about the other
> in the logic of OP, all other dogs who think this is behavior is okay
No. The OP did not talk about approval. They talked about specifically thinking the candidate is racist.
> in the logic of OP, all other dogs who think this is behavior is okay
No. The OP did not talk about approval. They talked about specifically thinking the candidate is racist.
As the OP, the logic goes like this... "I'm a racist. And I like Candidate X because I believe Candidate X is also a racist, based on the things Candidate X says".
Now, it's possible that Candidate X is not a racist. But if the racists are confused about it, maybe Candidate X needs to be more clear. Because the racists look at Candidate Y and "We hate Candidate Y, because they're opposed to our beliefs". No chance of misunderstandings there.
Now, Candidate X will certainly have other supporters saying "We don't believe Candidate X is a racist", but I look at them sidelong and say "Don't listen to me, listen to the racists".
Now, it's possible that Candidate X is not a racist. But if the racists are confused about it, maybe Candidate X needs to be more clear. Because the racists look at Candidate Y and "We hate Candidate Y, because they're opposed to our beliefs". No chance of misunderstandings there.
Now, Candidate X will certainly have other supporters saying "We don't believe Candidate X is a racist", but I look at them sidelong and say "Don't listen to me, listen to the racists".
> The bad elements were not the main priority of the dog.
The dog has no concept of "the bad elements".
The dog has no concept of "the bad elements".
I'm sorry what?
A dog isn't a reasoning human being. Using the dog, this way, in the argument is irrelevant and distracting to any of the issues.
I think we can say that EVERY person around Hitler was in fact a bad person regardless of whether they loved dogs.
It may be that people used fallacious reasoning to justify their own support of Hitler (ignoring his other qualities conveniently) for such reasons as "he likes dogs therefore he is a good person".
"I like X because he agrees with me in this narrow way therefore I'll support X doing terrible terrible things but justify it with this narrow reason."
That's a bad person supporting a bad person.
A dog isn't a reasoning human being. Using the dog, this way, in the argument is irrelevant and distracting to any of the issues.
I think we can say that EVERY person around Hitler was in fact a bad person regardless of whether they loved dogs.
It may be that people used fallacious reasoning to justify their own support of Hitler (ignoring his other qualities conveniently) for such reasons as "he likes dogs therefore he is a good person".
"I like X because he agrees with me in this narrow way therefore I'll support X doing terrible terrible things but justify it with this narrow reason."
That's a bad person supporting a bad person.
Alright, let's make it about humans:
Person A prefers apple over oranges and potatoes over tomatoes.
Person B prefers also potatoes over tomatoes but does not care about apple or oranges.
Original poster now argues that it is okay for Person C to say Person B is an oranges hater, just because Person B prefers potatoes.
Replace Person A/B/C with your favorite groups of adversaries.
Person A prefers apple over oranges and potatoes over tomatoes.
Person B prefers also potatoes over tomatoes but does not care about apple or oranges.
Original poster now argues that it is okay for Person C to say Person B is an oranges hater, just because Person B prefers potatoes.
Replace Person A/B/C with your favorite groups of adversaries.
Resist the urge to comment here with stories of the time everyone around you was illogical and inconsistent, and you were the sole voice of reason (or so you think). Much more interesting to think of the times when you were illogical and inconsistent, because it's a lot harder to spot in yourself.
Something I say a lot, especially at work, is "I could be wrong. I'm often wrong." I think it's very, very important to constantly remind yourself that you're not always right, and you're (hopefully) not the smartest person in the room. (Another rule of thumb - if you're the smartest person in the room, you need to find a better room!)
This also makes me think of the book Factfulness, by Hans Rosling. Best book I've read in years. In it, he details thought patterns common to all of us that mislead us and cause us to misunderstand or ignore even basic facts. He's not talking about "dumb people". He's talking about smart people, and how utterly wrong they are most of the time. It'll fundamentally change how you look at your own way of thinking.
This also makes me think of the book Factfulness, by Hans Rosling. Best book I've read in years. In it, he details thought patterns common to all of us that mislead us and cause us to misunderstand or ignore even basic facts. He's not talking about "dumb people". He's talking about smart people, and how utterly wrong they are most of the time. It'll fundamentally change how you look at your own way of thinking.
I've always felt that ability to accept that I'm wrong was essential to being any good at what I do ("write software") because of course the machine is (almost without exception) right and so almost always when I do something and it doesn't work that's because I got something wrong. I thought the variable was named something else, I thought the content type defaults to XML, I thought the input value is never zero, I thought that tiny change didn't need me to re-run the unit tests...
I find that being constantly confronted by the fact that I'm wrong in what I do for a living (and a hobby) sets me up to handle the same elsewhere in a more healthy way.
Example: I really like the intuitive explanation of what's actually going on with digital audio in Xiph's "Digital Show and Tell" and I often cite that when other people don't seem to understand - but this isn't because it was always obvious to me that's how it works. On the contrary, I find their explanation compelling because it directly confronts a common misunderstanding I had when I was younger. This misunderstanding was resolved by a friend & ex-colleague showing me more or less what Monty shows in the video (but with whatever gear he happened to have in his flat). Just like the video, he showed me that what I had believed was defied by the observable facts, and voilà my eyes were opened.
I find that being constantly confronted by the fact that I'm wrong in what I do for a living (and a hobby) sets me up to handle the same elsewhere in a more healthy way.
Example: I really like the intuitive explanation of what's actually going on with digital audio in Xiph's "Digital Show and Tell" and I often cite that when other people don't seem to understand - but this isn't because it was always obvious to me that's how it works. On the contrary, I find their explanation compelling because it directly confronts a common misunderstanding I had when I was younger. This misunderstanding was resolved by a friend & ex-colleague showing me more or less what Monty shows in the video (but with whatever gear he happened to have in his flat). Just like the video, he showed me that what I had believed was defied by the observable facts, and voilà my eyes were opened.
I think you're hitting on part of the real pleasure of software development here. Software is the real world. You can't negotiate, you can't beg, you can't bully, you can't do any of those human interactions to make it work. If the code doesn't work, the problem is almost certainly between the keyboard and the chair. As such, it's very rewarding when we get it right. We're displaying mastery over our environment.
The book Shop Class as Soulcraft, by Matthew B. Crawford, goes into this extensively. He's talking about more physical labor, but I find the substance applies to software as well. (And although I love the book, you can save a lot of time by googling his original essay, which is a much shorter and more concise read.) Crawford argues that labor against physical reality, as opposed to human interaction, drives both intellect and morality. It's a key to living an ethical life.
The book Shop Class as Soulcraft, by Matthew B. Crawford, goes into this extensively. He's talking about more physical labor, but I find the substance applies to software as well. (And although I love the book, you can save a lot of time by googling his original essay, which is a much shorter and more concise read.) Crawford argues that labor against physical reality, as opposed to human interaction, drives both intellect and morality. It's a key to living an ethical life.
I have a friend who's a metalworker, and I've always been intrigued by the parallels between our trades (mine being programming).
I think my favorite correspondence, though, is that the material we work with is the same material that our tools are made from. If my build scripts are broken, I fix them by writing code. If his mill is broken, he fixes it by fabricating a replacement part.*
---
*Not always, of course, but you get the idea.
I think my favorite correspondence, though, is that the material we work with is the same material that our tools are made from. If my build scripts are broken, I fix them by writing code. If his mill is broken, he fixes it by fabricating a replacement part.*
---
*Not always, of course, but you get the idea.
At some level, "smart" people may even have an easier time being wrong: one important facet is creativity. In other words, coming up with convincing justifications for one's incorrect stance, and digging in.
> Much more interesting to think of the times when you were illogical and inconsistent, because it's a lot harder to spot in yourself.
Agreed. This is something I think about a lot. I like consistency and am always trying to reconcile my personal beliefs with each other. It can be quite hard because it leads to questioning other beliefs that may be deeply held. The classic example is logic/reasoning and religion.
A simpler example that I recently went through was that I stopped drinking alcohol. I never had a problem with alcohol and would have beer or wine here and there. But, the evidence keeps mounting that it's literally just putting poison in your body with little benefits. I felt it was inconsistent for me to workout everyday, eat healthy, and then drink alcohol. So I stopped rationalizing and quit.
Agreed. This is something I think about a lot. I like consistency and am always trying to reconcile my personal beliefs with each other. It can be quite hard because it leads to questioning other beliefs that may be deeply held. The classic example is logic/reasoning and religion.
A simpler example that I recently went through was that I stopped drinking alcohol. I never had a problem with alcohol and would have beer or wine here and there. But, the evidence keeps mounting that it's literally just putting poison in your body with little benefits. I felt it was inconsistent for me to workout everyday, eat healthy, and then drink alcohol. So I stopped rationalizing and quit.
> A simpler example that I recently went through was that I stopped drinking alcohol. I never had a problem with alcohol and would have beer or wine here and there. But, the evidence keeps mounting that it's literally just putting poison in your body with little benefits. I felt it was inconsistent for me to workout everyday, eat healthy, and then drink alcohol. So I stopped rationalizing and quit.
Isn't this an example of you being the sole reasonable one? Exactly the thing the parent post was suggesting we avoid writing about?
Isn't this an example of you being the sole reasonable one? Exactly the thing the parent post was suggesting we avoid writing about?
I'm not trying to change anyone else's opinion on alcohol. I'm just trying to make my own internal opinions consistent.
I viewed the parents post as to avoid "I'm the only smart one in the group, and everyone else is wrong." Which I agree is a good attitude to avoid. In a group setting, it is much too easy to let our ego get in the way of evidence.
I viewed the parents post as to avoid "I'm the only smart one in the group, and everyone else is wrong." Which I agree is a good attitude to avoid. In a group setting, it is much too easy to let our ego get in the way of evidence.
The parent was not being rational, and noted that they were doing the same thing as other people. They later changed their behavior due to exposure to outside information. It seems explicit to me that the parent admits to being wrong here.
I dislike this study. It naively picks out a few conservative views to lampoon as examples of irrationality (I say this as a liberal), and then hopes to generalize this as "controversial topics"
This is too narrow. We shouldn't pretend that human beliefs are predominantly logical with a few strange exceptions. By and large we know incredibly little, most of what we "know" is because authorities have told us about it (e.g. I've never seen Africa with my own eyes), and most of what we believe isn't scientifically meaningful (i.e. justice/goodness being social constructs).
This is too narrow. We shouldn't pretend that human beliefs are predominantly logical with a few strange exceptions. By and large we know incredibly little, most of what we "know" is because authorities have told us about it (e.g. I've never seen Africa with my own eyes), and most of what we believe isn't scientifically meaningful (i.e. justice/goodness being social constructs).
What is a controversial scientific view that you wouldn't characterize as "conservative"? The article mentions aversion to GMO, does that count?
- men and women being physiological equivalent.
- women having equal innate interest in Stem
- no mental differences between races
- gay,bi,trans being entirely genetic
just off the top of my head. scratches the surface.
The last is particularly interesting because its the opposite viewpoint with regards to protected classes of people and genetic psychology.
- women having equal innate interest in Stem
- no mental differences between races
- gay,bi,trans being entirely genetic
just off the top of my head. scratches the surface.
The last is particularly interesting because its the opposite viewpoint with regards to protected classes of people and genetic psychology.
Aversion to GMO is a sort of aversion to the unknown.
Something like "regulation of long guns (shotguns, rifles, other things that aren't handguns) in various states in the US has had a non-negligible impact on crime in those states" would be more on par with climate change denial because in both cases you really have to pick a lot of cherries to back up the claim.
Something like "regulation of long guns (shotguns, rifles, other things that aren't handguns) in various states in the US has had a non-negligible impact on crime in those states" would be more on par with climate change denial because in both cases you really have to pick a lot of cherries to back up the claim.
"nuclear power is the safest on earth"
(cf forbes article which show death/kwh is even lower than wind / water energy)
(cf forbes article which show death/kwh is even lower than wind / water energy)
That article is not a very good example. It makes some pretty twisted arguments, the sort of thing boys in college say to make themselves feel smart.
Anything along the line of Rind et al. Not that paper in particular, but anything that is even remotely in the same region.
Anti-vaxxers tend to be described as middle/upper-class liberals. GMO/Organic trends do also tend to be similar groups
>Anti-vaxxers tend to be described as middle/upper-class liberals.
I've heard this, but it doesn't square with my own impressions, and a cursory Google search suggests that anti-vaxxers are not, in fact, predominantly liberal.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5784985/
[2] https://medium.com/the-future-is-electric/conservatives-are-...
I've heard this, but it doesn't square with my own impressions, and a cursory Google search suggests that anti-vaxxers are not, in fact, predominantly liberal.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5784985/
[2] https://medium.com/the-future-is-electric/conservatives-are-...
I've never heard anybody say that anti-vaxxers are anything but mostly conservative, and those opinions seem to match my own experiences, so this comment is a genuine surprise for me. Is there really a belief in the opposite in some circles?
Contrary to my downvotes, yes. I don't really think of it as any specific political thing, but there was a lot of emphasis, at least originally, put on the hollywood left (Jenny McCarthy comes to mind) pushing an anti-vax agenda.
I'm not trying to make any kind of political point here. Someone asked >>What is a controversial scientific view that you wouldn't characterize as "conservative"?
It's a stereotype. Like all stereotypes, it's attempting to make a broad proclamation of a large group of people, something that I generally try to avoid. I don't even agree with this one being accurate, but it's out there in the world.
[1]https://www.precisionvaccinations.com/childhood-vaccination-...
I'm not trying to make any kind of political point here. Someone asked >>What is a controversial scientific view that you wouldn't characterize as "conservative"?
It's a stereotype. Like all stereotypes, it's attempting to make a broad proclamation of a large group of people, something that I generally try to avoid. I don't even agree with this one being accurate, but it's out there in the world.
[1]https://www.precisionvaccinations.com/childhood-vaccination-...
> the hollywood left (Jenny McCarthy comes to mind)
McCarthy is clearly connected to Hollywood, but left? Basically her entire political activity is anti-vaxxers, and her brief foray into Presidential politics involved first trying to get McCain to take a meeting with her on the vaccine issue when he was running and, only when that failed, trying to do the same with Obama (who also declined.) Not exactly what you'd expect of someone committed to (or even inclined towards) the left.
(Which isn't to say there aren't Hollywood left anti-vaxxers, but McCarthy is an odd choice as an example...)
> I'm not trying to make any kind of political point here. Someone asked >>What is a controversial scientific view that you wouldn't characterize as "conservative"?
Anti-GMO would be a better example than anti-vax.
McCarthy is clearly connected to Hollywood, but left? Basically her entire political activity is anti-vaxxers, and her brief foray into Presidential politics involved first trying to get McCain to take a meeting with her on the vaccine issue when he was running and, only when that failed, trying to do the same with Obama (who also declined.) Not exactly what you'd expect of someone committed to (or even inclined towards) the left.
(Which isn't to say there aren't Hollywood left anti-vaxxers, but McCarthy is an odd choice as an example...)
> I'm not trying to make any kind of political point here. Someone asked >>What is a controversial scientific view that you wouldn't characterize as "conservative"?
Anti-GMO would be a better example than anti-vax.
>> Gary Baum of The Hollywood Reporter has investigated childhood illness and vaccination rates around Los Angeles County. He discovered that some schools in the most affluent L.A neighborhoods have vaccination rates lower than Southern Sudan. Let that sink in for a minute; one of the poorest regions in the world that is unable to supply clean drinking water for half of its inhabitants has a greater vaccination rate than schools that educate the offspring of Hollywood’s elite. [1]
I don't think LA is a hotbed of Republicanism or conservatism.
[1] https://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/vaccination-r...
I don't think LA is a hotbed of Republicanism or conservatism.
[1] https://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/vaccination-r...
I always heard of anti-vaxxers as bipartisan stupidity - although also largely middle or upper class because the poor and working class - partially because literally can't afford to pass up something that might make them sick and partially because they are often well aware that they aren't well educated.
Stereotypically vaccines are too 'unnatural and not flattering to their holisticism' for the left branch and the right are too scientific elite or government conspiracy for the right.
Stereotypically vaccines are too 'unnatural and not flattering to their holisticism' for the left branch and the right are too scientific elite or government conspiracy for the right.
Err literally can't afford to pass up something not that might make them not get sick.
That's the stereotype, but it's not clear that it's actually true [1]
1. http://theconversation.com/anti-vaccination-beliefs-dont-fol...
1. http://theconversation.com/anti-vaccination-beliefs-dont-fol...
> Anti-vaxxers tend to be described as middle/upper-class liberals.
While conservatives who aren't anti-vaxxers like to point to anti-vaxxers as the left equivalent of whatever anti-science group on the right is involved in a conversation (most often climate deniers), but while there are definitely some anti-vaxxers on the left, there's plenty, and from what I've seen more of them, on the religious right, too.
While conservatives who aren't anti-vaxxers like to point to anti-vaxxers as the left equivalent of whatever anti-science group on the right is involved in a conversation (most often climate deniers), but while there are definitely some anti-vaxxers on the left, there's plenty, and from what I've seen more of them, on the religious right, too.
For the purposes of attempting to understand why people continue to believe in things when there is much scientific evidence to the contrary, I felt the list they chose was very representative of relevant topics that fit this criteria. If you were to attempt to balance what you see as bias in this study, what are some specific examples that you feel would improve it?
Many I know on the left would deny any evidence of intrinsic psychological differences between the sexes. GMO safety is probably another one, but one example they gave of fallacious reasoning, while logically fallacious, is also well lined up with reality.
There's definitely a stronger inclination within the "left" to attribute sex-/gender-specific trait differences to culture/environmental causes rather than genetics. I'm kind of interested in the challenge of picking out how far genetics predetermines things but as far as I know there's not really a scientific consensus - at least nowhere near as much as for climate change or GMOs?
"There's definitely a stronger inclination within the "left" to attribute sex-/gender-specific trait differences to culture/environmental causes rather than genetics. "
No, it's the opposite.
'Born that way' was a positioning effort discovered in tye 90's by gay advocacy groups.
When social conservatives believe that 'gay is a choice' - then they are against it, but if social conservatives can be convinced that people are simply 'born that way' i.e. inherently gay, and it's not a behavioural thing, then clear majorities of them are accepting of it.
It's the biggest factor in determining a social conservatives tolerance towards gays.
The science I think is still out on that, but there's no doubt that the community marketing objectives are oriented towards 'inherent'.
When Cynthia Nixon decided in later life that she was gay - and then virulently said that she was in fact straight before, i.e. not 'coming out' but rather 'becoming gay' - it upset the gay community a lot because this is inconsistent with the marketing by the gay community.
This is one of a few topics that tend to be twisted by all sides. The science is vague.
No, it's the opposite.
'Born that way' was a positioning effort discovered in tye 90's by gay advocacy groups.
When social conservatives believe that 'gay is a choice' - then they are against it, but if social conservatives can be convinced that people are simply 'born that way' i.e. inherently gay, and it's not a behavioural thing, then clear majorities of them are accepting of it.
It's the biggest factor in determining a social conservatives tolerance towards gays.
The science I think is still out on that, but there's no doubt that the community marketing objectives are oriented towards 'inherent'.
When Cynthia Nixon decided in later life that she was gay - and then virulently said that she was in fact straight before, i.e. not 'coming out' but rather 'becoming gay' - it upset the gay community a lot because this is inconsistent with the marketing by the gay community.
This is one of a few topics that tend to be twisted by all sides. The science is vague.
I was talking about attitudes towards sex differences, not sexual orientation differences.
Oh, sorry. Then yes, absolutely. Totally agree.
> as far as I know there's not really a scientific consensus - at least nowhere near as much as for climate change
Why do you think that?
Why do you think that?
Not sure what you're looking for. After Damore's memo came out I carefully read it along with statements from scientists both in support and opposition, and I have the impression that there is no broad scientific consensus about the extent to which gender-specific career choices are biologically innate.
> I have the impression that there is no broad scientific consensus about the extent to which gender-specific career choices are biologically innate.
You are shifting the goalposts. We were discussing traits/personality differences.
Gender differences in the big 5 personality traits for example have broad scientific consensus.
Tying that to career choices isn’t really scientific AFAIK.
You are shifting the goalposts. We were discussing traits/personality differences.
Gender differences in the big 5 personality traits for example have broad scientific consensus.
Tying that to career choices isn’t really scientific AFAIK.
You're the one shifting goalposts. I stated that there's no scientific consensus regarding how far genetics predetermines things. Career choices is one thing where the consensus is not there.
If you meant how much genetics determines overall outcomes then I agree there isn’t a scientific consensus.
In your first paragraph you were clearly talking about traits and not outcomes:
> attribute sex-/gender-specific trait differences to culture/environmental
I missed where you changed to outcomes in your second paragraph.
In your first paragraph you were clearly talking about traits and not outcomes:
> attribute sex-/gender-specific trait differences to culture/environmental
I missed where you changed to outcomes in your second paragraph.
A few points:
1) Whether or not such a consensus exists is somewhat orthogonal to the question "Would any evidence convince you to change your mind"
2) There is complete consensus that there are morphological differences between the sexes; this consensus extends to neurology. To what degree these morphological differences are genetic is up for debate (remember that brain morphology is absolutely environmentally affected), but most of the time we have studied traits for nature vs. nurture, the answer has been "both."
3) For some mental traits (e.g. IQ) it is well established that the difference, if any between the means of men and women is quite small. For other mental traits it is well established that the difference is quite significant, and the question is to what degree it is genetic versus environmental.
4) Many people on the left have argued that any investigation into innate differences between men and women should not be allowed, under the theory that any positive result would be co-opted by misogynists. That might be true and even be a good reason to avoid the research in today's cultural climate, but it's definitely fallacious as an argument that there are no inherent differences; this study was specifically about fallacious reasoning, not correct reasoning.
1) Whether or not such a consensus exists is somewhat orthogonal to the question "Would any evidence convince you to change your mind"
2) There is complete consensus that there are morphological differences between the sexes; this consensus extends to neurology. To what degree these morphological differences are genetic is up for debate (remember that brain morphology is absolutely environmentally affected), but most of the time we have studied traits for nature vs. nurture, the answer has been "both."
3) For some mental traits (e.g. IQ) it is well established that the difference, if any between the means of men and women is quite small. For other mental traits it is well established that the difference is quite significant, and the question is to what degree it is genetic versus environmental.
4) Many people on the left have argued that any investigation into innate differences between men and women should not be allowed, under the theory that any positive result would be co-opted by misogynists. That might be true and even be a good reason to avoid the research in today's cultural climate, but it's definitely fallacious as an argument that there are no inherent differences; this study was specifically about fallacious reasoning, not correct reasoning.
I get what you're saying with (1). I'm saying I don't think it's quite justified to draw the comparison between "right-wing vs climate change" and "left-wing vs sex differences". All you have at the moment is a counter-factual about what you think left-wingers would believe if there was a scientific consensus.
repolfx(2)
>what are some specific examples that you feel would improve it?
The positive correlation between readily available long guns (i.e. non handguns) and violent crime (protip: the official stats tell the opposite story) is the equivalent to climate change denial (i.e. directly contradicted by pretty much all available evidence and pretty much everyone who is an expert in the subject) for the other end of the political spectrum. If you're looking for examples of illogical opinions this one is as good as any.
The positive correlation between readily available long guns (i.e. non handguns) and violent crime (protip: the official stats tell the opposite story) is the equivalent to climate change denial (i.e. directly contradicted by pretty much all available evidence and pretty much everyone who is an expert in the subject) for the other end of the political spectrum. If you're looking for examples of illogical opinions this one is as good as any.
I'd be quite interested in those stats if you can give me a citation. I can come up with a few ways to explain that correlation off the top of my head that would not imply causation (such as "long guns are more commonly owned in rural areas, so have proportionally higher ownership, and such areas also tend to see lower crime rates per square mile due to low population density", i.e., a third variable problem), so I'd be really interested to see the underlying data.
Presumably a good test case should involve a scientific consensus that the average person could reasonably be expected to be familiar with. What you're suggesting does not seem to fit (to be honest, I'm not even sure offhand what a "long gun" is).
> why people continue to believe in things when there is much scientific evidence to the contrary
No, it's not though. It's cherry-picked political. Most instances of believing this contrary to evidence aren't just political.
They are individual (e.g. thinking one is smarter than they are), religious, social (glorifying founding fathers), or even ethical
No, it's not though. It's cherry-picked political. Most instances of believing this contrary to evidence aren't just political.
They are individual (e.g. thinking one is smarter than they are), religious, social (glorifying founding fathers), or even ethical
> I dislike this study. It naively picks out a few conservative views to lampoon as examples of irrationality (I say this as a liberal), and then hopes to generalize this as "controversial topics"
I strong object to this. Having been deeply involved both with this topic, skeptical advocacy, and having been raised deeply conservative: "GMO foods" is not a conservative anti-science issue. It's deeply "liberal", and generally stems from an inability to separate unethical corporate work and interests with the outcomes of technology. Similarly, many anti-vaccination misinformation peddlers are squarely aligned with what constitutes the "left" in American popular culture.
> This is too narrow. We shouldn't pretend that human beliefs are predominantly logical with a few strange exceptions.
Again, I think you're reading into both the study and the article. This is more a study of how people rationalize their beliefs and in some cases, political affiliations inform that. It's an important topic.
> By and large we know incredibly little, most of what we "know" is because authorities have told us about it
Science, of course, neither creates reality nor truly measures it. It can only measure our observations, and we can seek to make our observations ever more reflective of reality. The entire point of that process is for us to convince one another and survive each other's reasonable objections.
Understanding how people work themselves up to reject such a consensus-driven process, and how the mental techniques they use may be addressed. The stakes are quite high.
I strong object to this. Having been deeply involved both with this topic, skeptical advocacy, and having been raised deeply conservative: "GMO foods" is not a conservative anti-science issue. It's deeply "liberal", and generally stems from an inability to separate unethical corporate work and interests with the outcomes of technology. Similarly, many anti-vaccination misinformation peddlers are squarely aligned with what constitutes the "left" in American popular culture.
> This is too narrow. We shouldn't pretend that human beliefs are predominantly logical with a few strange exceptions.
Again, I think you're reading into both the study and the article. This is more a study of how people rationalize their beliefs and in some cases, political affiliations inform that. It's an important topic.
> By and large we know incredibly little, most of what we "know" is because authorities have told us about it
Science, of course, neither creates reality nor truly measures it. It can only measure our observations, and we can seek to make our observations ever more reflective of reality. The entire point of that process is for us to convince one another and survive each other's reasonable objections.
Understanding how people work themselves up to reject such a consensus-driven process, and how the mental techniques they use may be addressed. The stakes are quite high.
> many anti-vaccination misinformation peddlers are squarely aligned with what constitutes the "left"
“Squarely aligned”? Nope, anti-vaxxers are not “squarely aligned” with any broad political movement.
Responsible politicians, party officials, pundits, etc. of all parties and ideologies are pro-vaccination.
But e.g. the Governor-Elect of Oklahoma is a GOP anti-vaxxer. It is incredibly dangerous when these views start to get legitimized: children will die.
“Squarely aligned”? Nope, anti-vaxxers are not “squarely aligned” with any broad political movement.
Responsible politicians, party officials, pundits, etc. of all parties and ideologies are pro-vaccination.
But e.g. the Governor-Elect of Oklahoma is a GOP anti-vaxxer. It is incredibly dangerous when these views start to get legitimized: children will die.
Trump is another noted anti-vaxxer. It's only anecdata, but all the anti-vaxxers I've known have been wealthy GOP voters.
Hi, today a noted liberal screenwriter compared the word "anti-vaxxer" to the racist n-word.
So if you ever scroll back through this, Google to see how wrong you were about this.
So if you ever scroll back through this, Google to see how wrong you were about this.
Let's offset him with Jim Carrey, perhaps?
It's a very bipartisan issue. People associate it with religious worldviews, but those folks actually make up only one faction.
It's a very bipartisan issue. People associate it with religious worldviews, but those folks actually make up only one faction.
When did Trump become an anti-vaxxer?
Don’t forget that Trump was a prominent Dem supporter for decades.
Don’t forget that Trump was a prominent Dem supporter for decades.
Trump in 2012:
> A study says Autism is out of control--a 78% increase in 10 years. Stop giving monstrous combined vaccinations
Trump in 2014:
> Healthy young child goes to doctor, gets pumped with massive shot of many vaccines, doesn't feel good and changes - AUTISM. Many such cases!
etc.
> A study says Autism is out of control--a 78% increase in 10 years. Stop giving monstrous combined vaccinations
Trump in 2014:
> Healthy young child goes to doctor, gets pumped with massive shot of many vaccines, doesn't feel good and changes - AUTISM. Many such cases!
etc.
Yes, but when did he first become an anti-vaxxer?
I don't think they are saying that we are predominantly logical with a few exceptions around controversial topics...
I think they are saying something much, much deeper and maybe this is just my confirmation bias kicking in here but it really supports my observations on a position I've held for a couple of years now.
I think what they are alluding to is that we are not logical and not rational in how we choose all of our beliefs as we do not try to seek out what is true (except for one edge case), instead we try to seek consensus within some political sphere (a group of any kind).
The so called controversial topics are where it's easiest to spot and easiest to study. But there is a stunningly deep implication that just because there is an uncontroversial consensus around something it doesn't mean the conclusion was arrived at by a sound process. So you actually really have to question everything.
For a while now I've been saying people don't argue for what is true, they argue for political affiliation.
It's close to impossible for humans to tell what's true. Often it would take trillions of dollars, millions of people or thousands of years to actually verify something as being the case. We take 99.99% of our existence on faith because it's simply not possible for us to fact check it. And if it's not possible for us to fact check what is true except for in the most basic of cases why would it ever be important to us as a social behavior? So that's why we see what this article points out. At least in my view.
We do do some degree of fact checking but it's usually the minimum viable fact checking to coordinate with our peers.
The interesting edge case they point out where some people do reason consistently is also signaling political affiliation. They are attempting to signal "I'm on team evidence-based". But the interesting thing about team "evidence-based" is they tend not to question or be skeptical so much of the fraud and other social phenomenon (replication crisis etc) present in science. They take it on faith that "this is the best answer I have whether it is true or not, but it's most likely true therefore it's true". Even team evidence-based isn't purely rational. And for good reason. They can't be. It's simply not viable to personally try to reproduce every study you read.
We are political animals that care about our survival and forming consensus. Not truth.
I think they are saying something much, much deeper and maybe this is just my confirmation bias kicking in here but it really supports my observations on a position I've held for a couple of years now.
I think what they are alluding to is that we are not logical and not rational in how we choose all of our beliefs as we do not try to seek out what is true (except for one edge case), instead we try to seek consensus within some political sphere (a group of any kind).
The so called controversial topics are where it's easiest to spot and easiest to study. But there is a stunningly deep implication that just because there is an uncontroversial consensus around something it doesn't mean the conclusion was arrived at by a sound process. So you actually really have to question everything.
For a while now I've been saying people don't argue for what is true, they argue for political affiliation.
It's close to impossible for humans to tell what's true. Often it would take trillions of dollars, millions of people or thousands of years to actually verify something as being the case. We take 99.99% of our existence on faith because it's simply not possible for us to fact check it. And if it's not possible for us to fact check what is true except for in the most basic of cases why would it ever be important to us as a social behavior? So that's why we see what this article points out. At least in my view.
We do do some degree of fact checking but it's usually the minimum viable fact checking to coordinate with our peers.
The interesting edge case they point out where some people do reason consistently is also signaling political affiliation. They are attempting to signal "I'm on team evidence-based". But the interesting thing about team "evidence-based" is they tend not to question or be skeptical so much of the fraud and other social phenomenon (replication crisis etc) present in science. They take it on faith that "this is the best answer I have whether it is true or not, but it's most likely true therefore it's true". Even team evidence-based isn't purely rational. And for good reason. They can't be. It's simply not viable to personally try to reproduce every study you read.
We are political animals that care about our survival and forming consensus. Not truth.
I lolled at the qualification of the conspiratorial bent arguments as fallacious. They clearly are not. Conspiracies happen and can take a long time to unwind. They should not make up the bulk of your argument and should not fuel a position without doubt, but they are not fallacious. Scientist make mistakes, take unwarranted positions and take bribes all the time. (I mean this across all fields not as any kind of direct accusation.) Some scepsis with any consensus is just smart logic.
Right. The article calls these things "fallacies", but that only strictly means that they're not slam-dunk arguments. Logical fallacies aren't necessarily bad heuristics, they just don't necessarily assure strict logical implication.
(Often they are actually decent Bayesian "evidence", though I don't want to make that argument for the cases in TFA.)
(Often they are actually decent Bayesian "evidence", though I don't want to make that argument for the cases in TFA.)
The Roman Trivium was Logic, Rhetoric, and grammar. Most of these arguments are logical fallacies - X does not guarantee Y - but are valid Rhetorical devices. Slippery slope is easiest to explain. If A, 90% chance of B, if B, 90% chance of C, if C, 90% chance of D. Therefore, if A, 73% of D - A implies D, if not perfectly. This is completely valid in Rhetoric, where you can't perfectly model anything, just approximate, but not logic, where truth or falsehood is digitized and binary. Most arguments that humans get into are rhetorical, but our focus on logic has left us vulnerable to misunderstanding. We are ignoring clear correlations because there's not a logical certainty.
Conspiratorial arguments have little no relation to actual real world conspiracies.
I don't think we can make a generalization here, there's all kinds of conspiration theories and all kinds of conspiratorial arguments
The usual conspiracy theory invokes what is called a "Grand conspiracy" in which other investigations, prior thinking on the same subject, and contradicting evidence are all dismissed as part of the conspiracy. This is laughably implausible because it involves this vast co-ordinated effort, often for no discernible purpose except to prevent the theorist from being right about something.
Actual secrets kept at some scale show the limits of what is possible, three of the best examples are from World War Two, a period that's near enough for us to have good records but distant enough that the secrets are long known to us.
Ultra is the most obvious. "The ultra secret" was the fact that Allied codebreakers could read some (though not all, at various points in the war) Enigma and other encrypted messages sent via radio by the sprawling Axis forces. Only a few dozen key people knew this secret, but of necessity hundreds, perhaps around 1000 more had some limited insight because their work was connected with the breaking of German messages (e.g. Hut workers at Bletchley engaged in translating broken messages or finding "cribs"). You will find people from the latter group who believed Ultra was protected well into the late 20th century, but in fact it ceased even to be an official secret after 29 years, and by the 1970s BBC documentary editors felt comfortable assuming that a general audience would know about Ultra in the television adaptation of Jones' autobiography "Most Secret War".
Second Manhattan. American development of a Nuclear Bomb could not of course be kept secret once the weapon had been used. But until then it was adequately guarded, there's no clear sign that Axis forces understood what the Americans were attempting or where. But lots of people tacitly knew about Manhattan, they just chose not to so anything until after the fact because "There's a secret military R&D base near where I live" is very obviously not something a patriotic person tells random strangers during a war...
Thirdly the Normandy invasion. Again after the fact this secret could not be kept. Within hours of making landfall the German high command were aware that this was not, as they had initially believed, a feint, and that all available resources must be diverted to defend against it. But that was far too late. Still in the weeks, and especially days, prior to the actual invasion, it will have been apparent not only to the soldiers involved but to nearby civilians that a massive naval landing was to be attempted. It just wasn't possible to hide from the people of Southern England that there were shitloads of infantry and boats making ready to depart in the next few days. Again the secret didn't get out, for a very short time, because it will have been obvious to all who knew that this wasn't something you should tell the enemy about.
Twenty Committee had successfully eliminated all German spies on the mainland (either turning them, imprisoning them, or as necessary killing them) so the only way for the secret to get out was for some idiot to tell the enemy themselves.
So those help you judge rough scale for a conspiracy. If a hypothetical conspiracy seems _harder_ to keep than, say, Manhattan, yet it seems to need more people to keep the secret than, say, Normandy, and for them to keep it longer than, say, Ultra, all because otherwise they might get sued, rather than because Actual Nazis are going to invade their country, well that's clearly crazy.
Actual secrets kept at some scale show the limits of what is possible, three of the best examples are from World War Two, a period that's near enough for us to have good records but distant enough that the secrets are long known to us.
Ultra is the most obvious. "The ultra secret" was the fact that Allied codebreakers could read some (though not all, at various points in the war) Enigma and other encrypted messages sent via radio by the sprawling Axis forces. Only a few dozen key people knew this secret, but of necessity hundreds, perhaps around 1000 more had some limited insight because their work was connected with the breaking of German messages (e.g. Hut workers at Bletchley engaged in translating broken messages or finding "cribs"). You will find people from the latter group who believed Ultra was protected well into the late 20th century, but in fact it ceased even to be an official secret after 29 years, and by the 1970s BBC documentary editors felt comfortable assuming that a general audience would know about Ultra in the television adaptation of Jones' autobiography "Most Secret War".
Second Manhattan. American development of a Nuclear Bomb could not of course be kept secret once the weapon had been used. But until then it was adequately guarded, there's no clear sign that Axis forces understood what the Americans were attempting or where. But lots of people tacitly knew about Manhattan, they just chose not to so anything until after the fact because "There's a secret military R&D base near where I live" is very obviously not something a patriotic person tells random strangers during a war...
Thirdly the Normandy invasion. Again after the fact this secret could not be kept. Within hours of making landfall the German high command were aware that this was not, as they had initially believed, a feint, and that all available resources must be diverted to defend against it. But that was far too late. Still in the weeks, and especially days, prior to the actual invasion, it will have been apparent not only to the soldiers involved but to nearby civilians that a massive naval landing was to be attempted. It just wasn't possible to hide from the people of Southern England that there were shitloads of infantry and boats making ready to depart in the next few days. Again the secret didn't get out, for a very short time, because it will have been obvious to all who knew that this wasn't something you should tell the enemy about.
Twenty Committee had successfully eliminated all German spies on the mainland (either turning them, imprisoning them, or as necessary killing them) so the only way for the secret to get out was for some idiot to tell the enemy themselves.
So those help you judge rough scale for a conspiracy. If a hypothetical conspiracy seems _harder_ to keep than, say, Manhattan, yet it seems to need more people to keep the secret than, say, Normandy, and for them to keep it longer than, say, Ultra, all because otherwise they might get sued, rather than because Actual Nazis are going to invade their country, well that's clearly crazy.
Soviet intelligence knew about the Manhattan project in 1941, almost a year before The Manhattan Engineer District was created. FBI fought constant battle against Soviets infiltrators.
Georgii Flerov (Soviet physicist) figured on his own that the US had a nuclear program in 1942 when he noticed that all publishing on the subject. And nobody cited his studies about fission of uranium.
Manhattan project was so big that Germans could have figured it out from bits and pieces even with their ineffective intelligence, but they never put all the pieces in together. German intelligence officer came to Heisenberg at least three times and asked if it was possible that Americans were building an uranium bomb and he said no.
Georgii Flerov (Soviet physicist) figured on his own that the US had a nuclear program in 1942 when he noticed that all publishing on the subject. And nobody cited his studies about fission of uranium.
Manhattan project was so big that Germans could have figured it out from bits and pieces even with their ineffective intelligence, but they never put all the pieces in together. German intelligence officer came to Heisenberg at least three times and asked if it was possible that Americans were building an uranium bomb and he said no.
I wonder if your proposed rough scale still applies in 2018. It was much more of an undertaking for 'some idiot' to tell the enemy themselves before social media. Today, I'm sure pictures of the D-Day boats in staging would be all over twitter within an hour - "anybody know what these are? just showed up in the harbour this morning." In the same vein, I find extraterrestrial UFO visitation harder and harder to believe with each year that passes without video evidence, now that everybody carries a powerful digital camera everywhere they go.
Sure. The argument being debunked as "conspiratorial" isn't even really a conspiracy. Companies that pay for safety studies cause them to be biased. That objectively happens.
I agree, and more so, it's something that most people feel more confident in assessing.
Put yourself in the position of someone that genuinely doesn't trust themselves to assess scientific evidence. One scientist article says one thing one week another the next, and they all feel vaguely related and unrelated.
If you can't trust yourself to weigh and understand the evidence yourself you instead look to the institutional pressures you think you understand.
In all the topics there is a well-constructed 'Them' * GMOs: the FDA is largely controlled by the agriculture industry themselves, across parties and administrations. It's not irrational to fear that the FDA is not adequately regulating food. * Vaccines: similar fears about the pharmaceutical industry are valid.
Both those industries have paid scientists, government regulators, and news organizations to spin data for their benefit and to avoid justice of different kinds.
*Global warming: the same people that seem to be overly concerned about cute owls and monkeys are "the liberals" which control the universities/research. Sure smog is bad, but (as one Denver taxi driver said to me once) "it smells like money." Sure they mean well, but they are likely to blow the issues out of proportion.
That's a system someone thinks they understand while who knows what an ice core really means.
TFA indicated that avoiding indicating identity/allegiance might help, but I'd like to see that study actually done.
Put yourself in the position of someone that genuinely doesn't trust themselves to assess scientific evidence. One scientist article says one thing one week another the next, and they all feel vaguely related and unrelated.
If you can't trust yourself to weigh and understand the evidence yourself you instead look to the institutional pressures you think you understand.
In all the topics there is a well-constructed 'Them' * GMOs: the FDA is largely controlled by the agriculture industry themselves, across parties and administrations. It's not irrational to fear that the FDA is not adequately regulating food. * Vaccines: similar fears about the pharmaceutical industry are valid.
Both those industries have paid scientists, government regulators, and news organizations to spin data for their benefit and to avoid justice of different kinds.
*Global warming: the same people that seem to be overly concerned about cute owls and monkeys are "the liberals" which control the universities/research. Sure smog is bad, but (as one Denver taxi driver said to me once) "it smells like money." Sure they mean well, but they are likely to blow the issues out of proportion.
That's a system someone thinks they understand while who knows what an ice core really means.
TFA indicated that avoiding indicating identity/allegiance might help, but I'd like to see that study actually done.
Sometimes there are conspiracies. But they are rare compared to simple incompetence. My objection to most conspiracy theories is that they skip over the null hypothesis, namely that one or more fallible humans screwed up.
Well, remember, if the mainstream media isn't reporting on a particular conspiracy theory, that's evidence that it IS happening. Otherwise why would they be afraid to report it?
Not to mention that for two of the topics mentioned (vaccines and GMO foods), and notably the topic for which a quote of so-called "conspiratorial argument" was provided in the article, there's not just the issue of the scientific consensus but also of how the corresponding technology is applied in the real world.
The highlighted argument about profit-seeking by companies is clearly a valid concern when it comes to how technologies are actually applied. It's why we have regulation and independent oversight bodies. (It's also unfair and misleading to call it a conspiratorial argument in the first place -- it's simply pointing out that an actor has financial interests and may therefore be biased, there's no conspiracy involved.)
Maybe you'd want survey respondents to perfectly separate the concerns of applications vs. scientific consensus, but to be honest I think that's an unfair expectation.
The highlighted argument about profit-seeking by companies is clearly a valid concern when it comes to how technologies are actually applied. It's why we have regulation and independent oversight bodies. (It's also unfair and misleading to call it a conspiratorial argument in the first place -- it's simply pointing out that an actor has financial interests and may therefore be biased, there's no conspiracy involved.)
Maybe you'd want survey respondents to perfectly separate the concerns of applications vs. scientific consensus, but to be honest I think that's an unfair expectation.
> 45 per cent of participants explicitly denied, at least once, that anything could change their mind on a particular topic
This is the most troubling data from the study for me. It's natural that people will hold opinions for which they don't have evidence, since we can't be experts on everything (e.g. "I trust my friend, who thinks that"), but the fact that half the population hold opinions that they would not change, given any amount of evidence, is actually somewhat terrifying.
This is the most troubling data from the study for me. It's natural that people will hold opinions for which they don't have evidence, since we can't be experts on everything (e.g. "I trust my friend, who thinks that"), but the fact that half the population hold opinions that they would not change, given any amount of evidence, is actually somewhat terrifying.
At a very young age (I think teenage years), I learned to ask this question whenever I'm in an endless argument:
>What information will make you change your mind?
In reality, you'll either get something ridiculously hard to show, or you'll get "Nothing!" I used to think it was a good way to realize you're wasting your time in the argument.
Over the years, my view has become nuanced. Those people who say "Nothing" or something outrageous are merely saying it because they themselves don't know in the moment what it will take. In practice, people do change their minds. So I wouldn't read too much into that 45% figure - it's more of a sign they didn't have an answer when they were asked.
Now in reality, social influences usually trigger a change much more than factual reasoning. If someone is adamant about a position and won't listen to you, but then he finds that a close friend he views as having similar values shares your perspective, he is much more likely to start looking at the facts. He is also much more likely to listen to that person than you.
I strongly recommend the books Influence by Cialdini as well as various negotiation books. The first gives the science. The latter puts them into practice.
The biggest mistake pro-science people make is in declaring others' opinions as wrong, and then follow it up with all the objective evidence they have to support their position that it is wrong. In the other person, this triggers a deep human sentiment "This other person does not care about my opinion". You get much further by listening and understanding the other person's perspective, and then signalling that you understand. Once there, present your facts, but not forcefully. End it with "Based on this data, my opinion is ..." Focus on why you believe what you do without explicitly invalidating the other person's perspective (no matter how insane).
>What information will make you change your mind?
In reality, you'll either get something ridiculously hard to show, or you'll get "Nothing!" I used to think it was a good way to realize you're wasting your time in the argument.
Over the years, my view has become nuanced. Those people who say "Nothing" or something outrageous are merely saying it because they themselves don't know in the moment what it will take. In practice, people do change their minds. So I wouldn't read too much into that 45% figure - it's more of a sign they didn't have an answer when they were asked.
Now in reality, social influences usually trigger a change much more than factual reasoning. If someone is adamant about a position and won't listen to you, but then he finds that a close friend he views as having similar values shares your perspective, he is much more likely to start looking at the facts. He is also much more likely to listen to that person than you.
I strongly recommend the books Influence by Cialdini as well as various negotiation books. The first gives the science. The latter puts them into practice.
The biggest mistake pro-science people make is in declaring others' opinions as wrong, and then follow it up with all the objective evidence they have to support their position that it is wrong. In the other person, this triggers a deep human sentiment "This other person does not care about my opinion". You get much further by listening and understanding the other person's perspective, and then signalling that you understand. Once there, present your facts, but not forcefully. End it with "Based on this data, my opinion is ..." Focus on why you believe what you do without explicitly invalidating the other person's perspective (no matter how insane).
I can't find the exact quote, but something Scott Adams (the creator of Dilbert) wrote once always stuck with me: "I've never seen anybody change their behavior due to a well-reasoned argument. I have seen people change their behavior to avoid ridicule."
It's perhaps useful to look at the positions of scientists themselves. First, there's not a clear boundary between scientific and non-scientific inquiry. Isaac Newton spent a considerable amount of time investigating alchemy among other subjects. He also held views well outside the mainstream on religion. [0]
Second, scientists can be just as obstinate as anyone. There is abundant evidence of scientists failing to modify their views in response to new ideas and data. Plate tectonics comes lightly to mind--many of those who opposed it never changed their minds. It prevailed in part because the opposition retired or died. [1]
If scientists themselves can be so resistant to rational inquiry, why do we uphold this as an ideal for ordinary citizens?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton
[1] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/when-continent...
Second, scientists can be just as obstinate as anyone. There is abundant evidence of scientists failing to modify their views in response to new ideas and data. Plate tectonics comes lightly to mind--many of those who opposed it never changed their minds. It prevailed in part because the opposition retired or died. [1]
If scientists themselves can be so resistant to rational inquiry, why do we uphold this as an ideal for ordinary citizens?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton
[1] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/when-continent...
In what sense is alchemy (in the way Newton understood it) not science?
It was a reasonable hypothesis at the time that you can make gold from other material. Indeed with particle accelerators you can do this [1, 2, 3]. Newton's methods were not powerful enough to achieve this, but this research hypothesis got refined, leading to chemistry as we know it today.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthesis_of_precious_metals
[2] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-l...
[3] https://glintpay.com/gold/modern-day-alchemy-making-gold-ato...
It was a reasonable hypothesis at the time that you can make gold from other material. Indeed with particle accelerators you can do this [1, 2, 3]. Newton's methods were not powerful enough to achieve this, but this research hypothesis got refined, leading to chemistry as we know it today.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthesis_of_precious_metals
[2] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-l...
[3] https://glintpay.com/gold/modern-day-alchemy-making-gold-ato...
That's a fair question which is why I also included Newton's work on religion, which was apparently something of an obsession.
My answer is that humans--even really extraordinary ones like Isaac Newton--don't divide knowledge into scientific and non-scientific spheres.
Moreover, commonly used analytic tools like inductive reasoning that are helpful in science don't answer questions like what happens when we die in a very satisfactory way. Even in much more mundane questions humans tend to see patterns where they don't exist. [0] It's still an open question which types of problems are properly the domain of science.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clustering_illusion
My answer is that humans--even really extraordinary ones like Isaac Newton--don't divide knowledge into scientific and non-scientific spheres.
Moreover, commonly used analytic tools like inductive reasoning that are helpful in science don't answer questions like what happens when we die in a very satisfactory way. Even in much more mundane questions humans tend to see patterns where they don't exist. [0] It's still an open question which types of problems are properly the domain of science.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clustering_illusion
> the fact that half the population hold opinions that they would not change, given any amount of evidence, is actually somewhat terrifying
What would change your mind on this?
What would change your mind on this?
If you want a serious answer to "What would it take to not be terrified of this fact?", I suppose it would be: Evidence indicating that populations are better served by ignoring reasoning and obtaining their beliefs through some other means, be it faith or authority.
In fairness, that opinion is not unprecedented in history.
In fairness, that opinion is not unprecedented in history.
New data suggesting that a larger percentage would be willing to change their mind given reasonable evidence?
I know you're trying to be snarky, but come on.
I know you're trying to be snarky, but come on.
Changing one's mind about that would mean to no longer find that terrifying, not it no longer being being the case.
I think this is actually a reasonable point- there are nuances for which there is no imagined amount of evidence to sway some opinions. For example, I highly doubt many scientific studies that suggested benefits to high amounts of lack of response to scientific studies on opinion in the population is a good thing would actually make you less terrified.
[deleted]
It's an ego thing. Being wrong is hard. I have found it can be even harder for 'smart' people to be wrong because so much of their self worth is built around being smart and thus right much of the time.
I think that what the people who indicate this really mean is that they refuse to change their minds as long as a decent portion of the population also refuses to change their viewpoint as well. Because then it is still validated to a certain degree. Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, had a great blog post about this topic. His post was on the issue of global warming and he said basically that his position on global warming is that since he doesn't know enough about the science to say with any level of certainty himself whether the claims of global warming are true and there is a social/political cost in terms of credibility/image for saying you don't believe it, then he will always say he is a believer and agrees with the mainstream opinion, regardless of what he actually thinks or if he simply doesn't know where he stands. If 99% of the world came to agree on the topic of global warming, I doubt most of these people who claim they will never change their mind would still hold the same belief. For example, are there still flat-Earthers? Yes, but they are a rounding error to 0 at this point.
While I'm easily in agreement on three of those four topics, I still get stuck on GMO. I've heard many times that the scientific consensus is that GMO foods are safe, but so far I can't understand why that statement can be made with so broad a brush. There are certain GMO foods that I have no problem with because I've looked into them a little more, but my impression of GMO is that the manner of genetic modification is essentially limitless, and it probably depends on the food, and the environment on where it's grown, etc. I mean they're literally saying, "Yup, we changed it" - shouldn't the question be changed it how? So since I can't hope to understand the complete enumeration of GMO ingredients in a package of storebought food, and which ones might be contributing to some sort of long term systemic imbalance in the food supply... I'm one that is prone to agreeing with GMO labels on food so I can buy the ones that aren't if I want. I'd like to think that I'm open to finding out what I might be misunderstanding here, but usually when I find discussions online about it, it tends to be either too vitriolic or so scientific I can't understand it and suspect there's some perspective being lost.
The scientists saying GMOs are safe mean they are safe like refrigerators are safe. You can certainly create an unsafe refrigerator. Maybe it has a faulty ground wire and runs voltage through the handle. Maybe it is unbalanced and will topple over on you. That fridge would be dangerous, but fridges are not dangerous as a category.
That could be contrasted with products made of arsenic. Those are quite dangerous as a category because arsenic is poisonous.
That could be contrasted with products made of arsenic. Those are quite dangerous as a category because arsenic is poisonous.
Organic matter is composed of molecular compounds. Things like oxygen, glucose, cellulose, etc. When scientists at Monsanto change the genome of an organism, they do it so that it grows larger, or is resistant to a weedkiller, or resistant to a virus. When these GMO plants are then harvested, they can be tested for any toxic compounds such as formaldehyde or arsenic. Since there is no evidence of toxic compounds above what you might find in ordinary food, you can conclude that GMOs are safe. It is impossible that there "could" be something in there that is toxic, or something we don't know about, because we know exactly what compounds are in the plant and we know that those compounds are not dangerous.
That's fine, but that limits the parameters to what is healthy for the person eating it. There's also the aspect to consider of changing the genome affecting the larger environment. I understand the argument that this has been done throughout history via selective breeding of plants, but it's more extreme and in a more compressed timeframe with genetic modification - meaning, less ability to anticipate and deal with the side effects.
Well another thing is that the genes aren't created completely novel. They try for selected traits when they transfer it and incidental mutations happen to everything. The odds of something of major significance occurring are extremely low low - given natural carcinogens and such that can and have mutated plants including viruses past practices had potential to be way worse for producing 'unexpected' results. There are technically risks to everything but they start to fall into the category of 'technically possible but downright absurd'.
Before targeted genetic modification there was atomic gardening. That was literally irradiating seeds and choosing what they liked of the mutant survivors - and a lot of seeds didn't germinate. Even doing something that 'randomizing' didn't cause those effects. As for health of food for people eating it I think we're technically already centuries if not millennia too late after repeatably breeding fruit for increased sweetness and lower fiber content.
Before targeted genetic modification there was atomic gardening. That was literally irradiating seeds and choosing what they liked of the mutant survivors - and a lot of seeds didn't germinate. Even doing something that 'randomizing' didn't cause those effects. As for health of food for people eating it I think we're technically already centuries if not millennia too late after repeatably breeding fruit for increased sweetness and lower fiber content.
People are not stupid and issues in question are hard.
Pretending you are an expert and know actual justification, evidence and logic behind all the geology, genetics, thermodynamics and so and so to have informed opinion about all of these topics is wrong.
People are right about their own beliefs. Their beliefs are not based on evidence, but cultural.
They could research one topic and report knowing it because of evidence (they researched it)
People are right about their own beliefs. Their beliefs are not based on evidence, but cultural.
They could research one topic and report knowing it because of evidence (they researched it)
How do people trust experts? That's a fundamental problem.
Additionally, there are non-scientific issues confused with "belief" in science. Does agreeing with the scientific consensus on GMOs entail a belief that corporations can be trusted to implement the science? That scientists, politicians and regulators haven't been bribed or coerced? That scientific and political systems in other countries can be judged by the scientific experts? Trusting in a practical use of GMOs is not the same as believing in the scientific consensus.
Another example:
> The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fbi-overstated-fo...
Additionally, there are non-scientific issues confused with "belief" in science. Does agreeing with the scientific consensus on GMOs entail a belief that corporations can be trusted to implement the science? That scientists, politicians and regulators haven't been bribed or coerced? That scientific and political systems in other countries can be judged by the scientific experts? Trusting in a practical use of GMOs is not the same as believing in the scientific consensus.
Another example:
> The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fbi-overstated-fo...
> How do people trust experts? That's a fundamental problem.
Yes, this! I've often thought that a lot of hereditary socioeconomic underperformance may be in some sense attributable to a self-reinforcing information deficit where people don't figure out which experts to trust, which life advice to take, which friends to make and keep. If your parents don't start you right it must be a helluva job to figure it out later.
Yes, this! I've often thought that a lot of hereditary socioeconomic underperformance may be in some sense attributable to a self-reinforcing information deficit where people don't figure out which experts to trust, which life advice to take, which friends to make and keep. If your parents don't start you right it must be a helluva job to figure it out later.
>However, 20 per cent of justifications were subjective and involved making a reference to one’s cultural identity, personal experience or fallacious reasoning.
Well, another reading of this is that "objective criteria" aren't everything.
Even if it's "scientifically objectively" better to do X, it doesn't mean it's what a person wants to do (or should do).
There's better as in "more efficient" (which is measurable and objective) and better as a value judgement.
"This fits better with my moral code, culture, food taste, preferences, etc." is a perfectly valid justification.
Well, another reading of this is that "objective criteria" aren't everything.
Even if it's "scientifically objectively" better to do X, it doesn't mean it's what a person wants to do (or should do).
There's better as in "more efficient" (which is measurable and objective) and better as a value judgement.
"This fits better with my moral code, culture, food taste, preferences, etc." is a perfectly valid justification.
This is intuitive. People aren't consistent, why should we expect their reasoning to be? Especially when the main determinant for most peoples' views on controversial topics, in the USA at least, is their political party affiliation. Why is it that having a D or R in front of a politician's name can correctly predict around 80-90% of their viewpoints? It's a clustering effect, people select D or R, and then cobble together reasoning as best they can to defend their felt views.
Perfectly evidenced by the use of science, for instance. You have something like a pro-life movement, which co-opts scientific "facts" to support their view of fetuses being humans. But then these same GOP voters ignore scientific "facts" when it comes to climate change. This is due to the Republican politicians, who cluster all of their supporter's views to match their own. It's the same on the Democratic side - look at anti-GMO protesters who are ignorant of the scientifically proven benefits of GMO's, yet who point to 98% of scientists reaching consensus on climate change.
Political party is stronger than reasoning or consistency.
Perfectly evidenced by the use of science, for instance. You have something like a pro-life movement, which co-opts scientific "facts" to support their view of fetuses being humans. But then these same GOP voters ignore scientific "facts" when it comes to climate change. This is due to the Republican politicians, who cluster all of their supporter's views to match their own. It's the same on the Democratic side - look at anti-GMO protesters who are ignorant of the scientifically proven benefits of GMO's, yet who point to 98% of scientists reaching consensus on climate change.
Political party is stronger than reasoning or consistency.
Because political questions don't have scientific solutions.
Pro-life supporters aren't co-opting science when they claim a fetus is a human being, they are undermining a possible objection: obviously everyone recognizes that killing a 1 year old is not ok, regardless how the mother feels about it, so why is it ok to kill a fetus? What's the relevant distinction between the two cases?
In a former time people didn't have a good understanding of human development, so you might claim the fetus wasn't really human until it was born. Scientifically that doesn't hold up.
But you might still be ok with abortion on other grounds. Perhaps a rationale based on capabilities or intelligence, etc.
You can levy science to support a premise in an argument, but science can't decide the policy. That comes down to values, trade-offs, philosophy and ideology.
Climate change is a great example. What everyone talks about is a belief in a one sentence description of an idea. But the actual detailed contours of that belief, and the scientific arguments that led to its conclusion... who has those?
Climate isn't exactly easy to understand, even for an expert, and people have other priorities about things they care about.
For a Republican its mostly going to come down to trust in government, and its that ideology which drives the conclusion.
Anyway I don't think scientific shibboleths are all that valuable. I'd much rather people actually understand this stuff, but the truth is its asking too much. People live busy lives and not everyone can be a scientist.
Pro-life supporters aren't co-opting science when they claim a fetus is a human being, they are undermining a possible objection: obviously everyone recognizes that killing a 1 year old is not ok, regardless how the mother feels about it, so why is it ok to kill a fetus? What's the relevant distinction between the two cases?
In a former time people didn't have a good understanding of human development, so you might claim the fetus wasn't really human until it was born. Scientifically that doesn't hold up.
But you might still be ok with abortion on other grounds. Perhaps a rationale based on capabilities or intelligence, etc.
You can levy science to support a premise in an argument, but science can't decide the policy. That comes down to values, trade-offs, philosophy and ideology.
Climate change is a great example. What everyone talks about is a belief in a one sentence description of an idea. But the actual detailed contours of that belief, and the scientific arguments that led to its conclusion... who has those?
Climate isn't exactly easy to understand, even for an expert, and people have other priorities about things they care about.
For a Republican its mostly going to come down to trust in government, and its that ideology which drives the conclusion.
Anyway I don't think scientific shibboleths are all that valuable. I'd much rather people actually understand this stuff, but the truth is its asking too much. People live busy lives and not everyone can be a scientist.
Know that feeling when you learn a new word and then you see it everywhere?
Well, that's a bit how I feel now that I am reading The Knowledge Illusion: Why We Never Think Alone, by Philip Fernbach and Steven A. Sloman. It's a book around the topic of this post. Might be of interest to whoever finds this topic appealing.
Well, that's a bit how I feel now that I am reading The Knowledge Illusion: Why We Never Think Alone, by Philip Fernbach and Steven A. Sloman. It's a book around the topic of this post. Might be of interest to whoever finds this topic appealing.
[deleted]
The world is fundamentally a pretty nice, easy-going place. (Cf. Bucky Fuller) Ergo, bad reasoning is the only factor keeping us from entering a kind of Golden Age.
(FWIW, the rational belief to hold about GMOs is that they are a dangerous unproven experiment, and that's it's wildly irresponsible to apply genetic engineering willy-nilly without centuries of research. So... YMMV.)
(FWIW, the rational belief to hold about GMOs is that they are a dangerous unproven experiment, and that's it's wildly irresponsible to apply genetic engineering willy-nilly without centuries of research. So... YMMV.)
The scientific consensus once was that there was nothing more elementary than protons and neutrons. Also that light traveled through ether... To fault someone for being skeptical of scientific consensus seems to be ignorant of humanity’s history of ignorance.
Obviously science is an essential tool for human progress but it is not a finder of objective truths.
I have been working hard on debunking belief-systems that are in science itself and in its communities.
A lot of science is based on procedures and theories that automatically create certain results. As long people do not see this, it makes no sense comparing one belief-system versus another.
A lot of science is based on procedures and theories that automatically create certain results. As long people do not see this, it makes no sense comparing one belief-system versus another.
Since scientific consensus has replaced religion for many people, we're long overdue for Luthers and Calvins to question it (and I say this as a Catholic). It's intuitive that "the word of God" can and historically has been perverted by human beings who have been corrupted by power, it should follow that the same is true for "settled science." Even if you're not religious, historical religion is an excellent demonstration of the fallibility of man, why would scientific consensus be any different?
People make decisions with their gut first, and then backfill their decision with "logic." We should be called homo irrational, not homo sapiens.
Add to that the amount of effort we expend to protect our egos and it's a wonder we ever arrive at correct decisions.
Add to that the amount of effort we expend to protect our egos and it's a wonder we ever arrive at correct decisions.
IMO, there are three bases for dis/belief in a theory: 1) the supporting evidence is compelling, 2) the counter evidence is not, and 3) the alternative theories are not. The authors (seem to) mention only basis 1, but not 2 or 3. But it's the interplay among all three that must tip the scale if the thought process is truly scientific.
However I doubt any non-scientist could enumerate serious counter theories to the scientific status quo for evolution, GMOs, vaccines, or climate change -- other than citing probability and the burden of proof as insufficient for their adoption.
Personally I know little evidence that GMOs are toxic, so I side with non-toxic. Same for vaccines (now that Wakefield is wholly discredited). Same for counter-theories to evolution, though that's such a big topic, it'd be silly to endorse all or none of it, especially at the fringes. Evolution's chief strengths are its longevity and that there's no viable alternative theory for speciation. The existence of global warming AND man as its cause also suffers from a lack of viable alternative explanations. But is this scientific thinking, or just pragmatism? I disbelieve unless you can convince me otherwise. That's just common sense.
The OP doesn't seem to address "burden of proof" in judging scientific theories, except to combine the three bases under "justification". But I think the distinction between the three is essential, as is their visible presence, in a rational mind, since science-based belief must reflect the sum of thought that assesses evidence for, against, AND vs. alternative theories.
Ignoring any of these three puts one on the road to faith.
However I doubt any non-scientist could enumerate serious counter theories to the scientific status quo for evolution, GMOs, vaccines, or climate change -- other than citing probability and the burden of proof as insufficient for their adoption.
Personally I know little evidence that GMOs are toxic, so I side with non-toxic. Same for vaccines (now that Wakefield is wholly discredited). Same for counter-theories to evolution, though that's such a big topic, it'd be silly to endorse all or none of it, especially at the fringes. Evolution's chief strengths are its longevity and that there's no viable alternative theory for speciation. The existence of global warming AND man as its cause also suffers from a lack of viable alternative explanations. But is this scientific thinking, or just pragmatism? I disbelieve unless you can convince me otherwise. That's just common sense.
The OP doesn't seem to address "burden of proof" in judging scientific theories, except to combine the three bases under "justification". But I think the distinction between the three is essential, as is their visible presence, in a rational mind, since science-based belief must reflect the sum of thought that assesses evidence for, against, AND vs. alternative theories.
Ignoring any of these three puts one on the road to faith.
"scientific consensus"
That's a contradiction in terms. Science is not democratic; wide agreement doesn't matter. A single rogue experiment or even observation can upend an entire way of understanding the world.
Compare the following two statements:
"We consulted with the scientific community. Sound science shows that vaccines save many lives, not just the ones being vaccinated. Decades of history have not turned up any significant risks. Therefore, we recommend local schools give vaccines to nearly all students. We've set up a fund to help administer this for schools that need it, and resources for homeschooled children."
Versus:
"Our favorite professors determined that vaccines are good, so we're going to inject every kid in the country, including yours. There's nothing you can do about it because you are not a Ph.D.".
With phrases like "scientific consensus", people hear more of the latter and less of the former. Especially since the phrase is used to essentially sign a blank check, where the original claim can be stretched far into the political realm by whoever is speaking.
That's a contradiction in terms. Science is not democratic; wide agreement doesn't matter. A single rogue experiment or even observation can upend an entire way of understanding the world.
Compare the following two statements:
"We consulted with the scientific community. Sound science shows that vaccines save many lives, not just the ones being vaccinated. Decades of history have not turned up any significant risks. Therefore, we recommend local schools give vaccines to nearly all students. We've set up a fund to help administer this for schools that need it, and resources for homeschooled children."
Versus:
"Our favorite professors determined that vaccines are good, so we're going to inject every kid in the country, including yours. There's nothing you can do about it because you are not a Ph.D.".
With phrases like "scientific consensus", people hear more of the latter and less of the former. Especially since the phrase is used to essentially sign a blank check, where the original claim can be stretched far into the political realm by whoever is speaking.
[deleted]
[deleted]
There's plenty of evidence that science and scientists are easily corruptible and high profile 'results' like "mmmmm GMO corn" are a lie. Example from my own career: some ridiculous smart grid technology which claimed people would turn their air conditioners off when it is hot out because "muh free markets" peak load pricing changes. I actually had access to the original data which pushed forward this ridiculous multi-billion dollar boondoggle and checked the assertions: the PIs overtly lied.
Anytime you hear the word "scientific consensus" used to brow beat people, you should run. Science is not about consensus. Plenty of scientists challenge the consensus view and end up being correct. It's still happening to today.
We should not be urging the point that "good scientists" are the one who don't question the consensus view.
I can give a good current example: Alzheimer's. Were now seeing the failure of the Amaloid Beta model in all clinical trails and preliminary evidence is starting to point to a herpes virus link.
We should not be urging the point that "good scientists" are the one who don't question the consensus view.
I can give a good current example: Alzheimer's. Were now seeing the failure of the Amaloid Beta model in all clinical trails and preliminary evidence is starting to point to a herpes virus link.
interesting article with a lot of good tidbits. i found it particularly interesting that the authors mention how a substantial subset of people merely reiterate their position when prompted to explain their rationale for certain beliefs.
the details regarding how for many people "reasoning" is about referencing the person's perception of their own identity is also very valuable. i wouldn't call this reasoning whatsoever, however. it's tribalism -- the opposite of reasoning. this suggests that many people simply don't think about controversial issues, and instead take cues from authorities of their identity subtype. i assume there is literature which supports this idea.
there was one thing which i took issue with, however.
>sceptical attitudes toward the scientific consensus on genetically modified foods (as safe) tended to involve fallacious reasoning of a conspiratorial bent (such as “I am hesitant to believe there are NO concerns because the multinational agricultural corporations such as Monsanto have profits as the basis of their existence so any information they put out is suspect”)
this is a poor example given the recent debunking of monsanto's "glyphosate is safe" fabrications. it isn't conspiratorial to suggest that X may not be Y because the proponent of X benefits from and encourages people thinking Y. that's basic critical thinking which recognizes that scientific results can be skewed or falsified to support a narrative.
given the rest of the article, i'm confident that the author's use of this example wasn't malicious... but there are many better examples.
the details regarding how for many people "reasoning" is about referencing the person's perception of their own identity is also very valuable. i wouldn't call this reasoning whatsoever, however. it's tribalism -- the opposite of reasoning. this suggests that many people simply don't think about controversial issues, and instead take cues from authorities of their identity subtype. i assume there is literature which supports this idea.
there was one thing which i took issue with, however.
>sceptical attitudes toward the scientific consensus on genetically modified foods (as safe) tended to involve fallacious reasoning of a conspiratorial bent (such as “I am hesitant to believe there are NO concerns because the multinational agricultural corporations such as Monsanto have profits as the basis of their existence so any information they put out is suspect”)
this is a poor example given the recent debunking of monsanto's "glyphosate is safe" fabrications. it isn't conspiratorial to suggest that X may not be Y because the proponent of X benefits from and encourages people thinking Y. that's basic critical thinking which recognizes that scientific results can be skewed or falsified to support a narrative.
given the rest of the article, i'm confident that the author's use of this example wasn't malicious... but there are many better examples.
The article implies a scientific fallacy, which is that scientific knowledge is binary - i.e. either science can say with certainty that something is true, or it can say with equal certainty that something is false.
This is not how science works. There are decreasing circles of confidence out from the relative certainty of a core curriculum - approximately an undergrad degree in a hard science - to various research topics. At the edges are pure research which is really just educated guessing. Far from being an invincible march towards knowledge, science actually progresses by throwing grad students at problems more or less at random. Some of them get lucky and find some key insights that match reality.
Most don't.
Unfortunately there's plenty of evidence from history of scientific reassurances being presented as certainties which were subsequently shown to be wrong - sometimes dangerously so.
Add the toxic influence of corporate interest and the unarguable reality that fact that some "evidence" is bought and paid for, and it becomes very hard to accept research as the proof science would like it to be.
So it's actually rational to be skeptical of extraordinary claims.
E.g. GMOs. The extraordinary claim is that GMOs will end hunger. Obviously only a total monster would oppose that.
In reality research into other farming techniques also increases yields, and in any case hunger is actually caused by bad politics, not lack of faith in science.
Articles like these conflate the difference between science-as-pure-research for the sake of knowledge, and science-as-policy-justification.
The standards for science-as-policy should be much higher than science-as-research, because the consequences of warping truth for profit or power can be so much more damaging.
This is not how science works. There are decreasing circles of confidence out from the relative certainty of a core curriculum - approximately an undergrad degree in a hard science - to various research topics. At the edges are pure research which is really just educated guessing. Far from being an invincible march towards knowledge, science actually progresses by throwing grad students at problems more or less at random. Some of them get lucky and find some key insights that match reality.
Most don't.
Unfortunately there's plenty of evidence from history of scientific reassurances being presented as certainties which were subsequently shown to be wrong - sometimes dangerously so.
Add the toxic influence of corporate interest and the unarguable reality that fact that some "evidence" is bought and paid for, and it becomes very hard to accept research as the proof science would like it to be.
So it's actually rational to be skeptical of extraordinary claims.
E.g. GMOs. The extraordinary claim is that GMOs will end hunger. Obviously only a total monster would oppose that.
In reality research into other farming techniques also increases yields, and in any case hunger is actually caused by bad politics, not lack of faith in science.
Articles like these conflate the difference between science-as-pure-research for the sake of knowledge, and science-as-policy-justification.
The standards for science-as-policy should be much higher than science-as-research, because the consequences of warping truth for profit or power can be so much more damaging.
> climate change, vaccines, genetically modified (GMO) foods and evolution
On all four I happily defer to the experts in the scientific community who study the relevant fields.
On none of these do I suspect a breakdown of science because the sample of diverse specialists I have queried in each field reinforce the wider notion that there is a clear scientific consensus. Furthermore, the conversations I've had with specialists don't reveal any lack of consensus, while in my experience specialists usually seem quite happy to talk about scientific controversies.
On these topics let's call it "appeal to diverse set of authorities." Throw me a denier from any of the four topics and my only tactic will be to agree on a method of randomly choosing one of the thousands of experts to whom I delegate my opinion. The doubter must then either agree to argue with that expert or be forced to argue their position as the great conspiracy of the 21st century.
As long as you discuss these topics face-to-face, you'd be surprised how quickly even some of the hard core deniers' positions shift.
Edit: clarification
On all four I happily defer to the experts in the scientific community who study the relevant fields.
On none of these do I suspect a breakdown of science because the sample of diverse specialists I have queried in each field reinforce the wider notion that there is a clear scientific consensus. Furthermore, the conversations I've had with specialists don't reveal any lack of consensus, while in my experience specialists usually seem quite happy to talk about scientific controversies.
On these topics let's call it "appeal to diverse set of authorities." Throw me a denier from any of the four topics and my only tactic will be to agree on a method of randomly choosing one of the thousands of experts to whom I delegate my opinion. The doubter must then either agree to argue with that expert or be forced to argue their position as the great conspiracy of the 21st century.
As long as you discuss these topics face-to-face, you'd be surprised how quickly even some of the hard core deniers' positions shift.
Edit: clarification
Reason cannot give us ethics. Ethics is based upon subjective human experience.
Is it though? MAD is a trivial counter example. The reason why you shouldn't nuke your rival nation even though they are communists/capitalists that you despise with every fiber of your being is that you would get nuked in turn for it.
Granted ethics has many differing frameworks itself.
Granted ethics has many differing frameworks itself.
Imagine if the topics were existence of ether, phrenology, or racism, which enjoyed the scientific consensus of their day. I wonder what would correlate with disbelief in those controversial topics.
Often mentioned on HN, Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind (https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Relig...) is a worthy read. Briefly: Almost everyone comes up with the conclusion first, and rationale later. The former drives the latter. He gives examples from studies where people gave responses similar to what this paper has: Very poor reasons, and occasionally nonsensical ones.
This is true for pretty much everyone - don't go and count yourself as the exception. The more intelligent you are, the more refined your reasoning, but there's evidence to show that intelligence will not lower the bias. Counterarguments from others as intelligent or more intelligent will. One of the curses of being more intelligent is that if you hold a biased view, you usually need someone as smart as you to change your mind. The smarter you get, the fewer people there are who can help remove your bias.
Some people are more objective than others, but often only in a limited domain - not in their whole lives.
>However, 20 per cent of justifications were subjective and involved making a reference to one’s cultural identity, personal experience.
The book also touches on this. In my personal experience, fact based reasoning is rarer than this. There are many reasons people believe something. Attempting to discern the Truth is usually in the minority. It is to be expected that all the other reasons will be more prevalent - they simply have more utility than merely gaining knowledge. It shouldn't surprise people that factual reasoning is rare - it has little utility in most spheres of life. Much less than social cohesion and tribalism does.
Consider the issue of intelligence, and its spread across various groups (usually race and gender). It's very common to find a very well educated person insist that everyone is born equally with the same mental/intelligence potential, and differences exist merely in the extent they foster it. When asked for their rationale/evidence, the answer is usually a variant of "I choose to believe it" (usually for ideological or cultural reasons). I'm not referring only to ordinary folks, but also to university academics, etc.
(I'm not saying that they are factually wrong - merely the reasons they believe it are not based on any facts).
>whether they agreed with the scientific consensus on climate change, vaccines, genetically modified (GMO) foods and evolution
Two of those items (vaccines and GMO foods) touch on a strongly cultural force on purity. The book shows that a lot of people value purity (likely a genetic trait). They associate food consumption not just with physical health, but also mental/spiritual health. So they are quite sensitive to "unnatural" or foreign agents going into their bodies.
This is true for pretty much everyone - don't go and count yourself as the exception. The more intelligent you are, the more refined your reasoning, but there's evidence to show that intelligence will not lower the bias. Counterarguments from others as intelligent or more intelligent will. One of the curses of being more intelligent is that if you hold a biased view, you usually need someone as smart as you to change your mind. The smarter you get, the fewer people there are who can help remove your bias.
Some people are more objective than others, but often only in a limited domain - not in their whole lives.
>However, 20 per cent of justifications were subjective and involved making a reference to one’s cultural identity, personal experience.
The book also touches on this. In my personal experience, fact based reasoning is rarer than this. There are many reasons people believe something. Attempting to discern the Truth is usually in the minority. It is to be expected that all the other reasons will be more prevalent - they simply have more utility than merely gaining knowledge. It shouldn't surprise people that factual reasoning is rare - it has little utility in most spheres of life. Much less than social cohesion and tribalism does.
Consider the issue of intelligence, and its spread across various groups (usually race and gender). It's very common to find a very well educated person insist that everyone is born equally with the same mental/intelligence potential, and differences exist merely in the extent they foster it. When asked for their rationale/evidence, the answer is usually a variant of "I choose to believe it" (usually for ideological or cultural reasons). I'm not referring only to ordinary folks, but also to university academics, etc.
(I'm not saying that they are factually wrong - merely the reasons they believe it are not based on any facts).
>whether they agreed with the scientific consensus on climate change, vaccines, genetically modified (GMO) foods and evolution
Two of those items (vaccines and GMO foods) touch on a strongly cultural force on purity. The book shows that a lot of people value purity (likely a genetic trait). They associate food consumption not just with physical health, but also mental/spiritual health. So they are quite sensitive to "unnatural" or foreign agents going into their bodies.
I believe in global warming, but not because of research papers or books I've read on climate change. I've clicked on research papers but I often find the scientific terminology and information in them overwhelming. I think, "It looks like they know what they're talking about." Sometimes I don't even click. I look around at people commenting on it, and if an articulate person makes a case one way or another, it influences my beliefs.
I know this is wrong but frankly it would be impossible to be educated enough on all these matters to justify having an opinion. Imagine if everyone who felt strongly about global warming had read and understood at least one research paper on it. That would mean half my friends, family, and coworkers have read and understood a research paper. I'll take the under...
What makes matters worse is being around people socially who have strong opinions. Not having one can make you look boring or dimwitted. If the conversation wanders into an area in which you do have an opinion--based on facts and research--citing those facts can feel like reading off box score statistics at a Yankees-Red Sox game. No one gets excited!
That makes me cynical. I think, people just want to feel strongly about something, kind of like they want to have a baseball team. It binds them together. I guess that's fine, I just wish we treated it more like sports and less like religion.