SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the I-don't-want-knowledge-I-want-certainty dept.
Jeremy P. Shapiro, a professor of psychology at Case Western Reserve University, has an article on The Conversation about one of the main cognitive errors at the root of science denial: dichotomous thinking, where entire spectra of possibilities are turned into dichotomies, and the division is usually highly skewed. Either something is perfect or it is a complete failure, either we have perfect knowledge of something or we know nothing.
Currently, there are three important issues on which there is scientific consensus but controversy among laypeople: climate change, biological evolution and childhood vaccination. On all three issues, prominent members of the Trump administration, including the president, have lined up against the conclusions of research.
This widespread rejection of scientific findings presents a perplexing puzzle to those of us who value an evidence-based approach to knowledge and policy.
Yet many science deniers do cite empirical evidence. The problem is that they do so in invalid, misleading ways. Psychological research illuminates these ways.
[...] In my view, science deniers misapply the concept of “proof.”
Proof exists in mathematics and logic but not in science. Research builds knowledge in progressive increments. As empirical evidence accumulates, there are more and more accurate approximations of ultimate truth but no final end point to the process. Deniers exploit the distinction between proof and compelling evidence by categorizing empirically well-supported ideas as “unproven.” Such statements are technically correct but extremely misleading, because there are no proven ideas in science, and evidence-based ideas are the best guides for action we have.
I have observed deniers use a three-step strategy to mislead the scientifically unsophisticated. First, they cite areas of uncertainty or controversy, no matter how minor, within the body of research that invalidates their desired course of action. Second, they categorize the overall scientific status of that body of research as uncertain and controversial. Finally, deniers advocate proceeding as if the research did not exist.
Dr. David "Orac" Gorski has further commentary on the article. Basically, science denialism works by exploiting the very human need for absolute certainty, which science can never truly provide.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by ikanreed on Thursday November 14 2019, @01:14AM (19 children)
Don't bother, the article provides less meaningful material than your 5 line post.
And I don't agree with the first half of his post, because while "we've got 10 years" incorrectly describes whether the oceans will raise 100 meters in that time, it very correctly describes some serious and rigorous analyses of when(at the current rate of increase in global emissions) clathrate acceleration will become self-sustaining and impossible to reverse. To be honest, those particular analyses mean we're doomed even if we handed over the keys to the most radical of greens, because it takes 10+ years to convert an economy to more sustainable energy sources.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 14 2019, @01:26AM (18 children)
You kinda missed one of my points. Climate change is already self sustaining and irreversible.
Can you replace the mile of ice that sat on top of what is now Moraine State Park, in Pennsylvania? No? Then, climate change is irreversible.
You can't take a screenshot of a video game, and say that particular moment defines the game, can you? Then you can't take a brief couple hundred years of sweet climate, and state "This is how climate should be - MUST BE!"
The earth is warming, and climate changes. Let's get used to it, and deal with it.
(Score: 3, Informative) by ikanreed on Thursday November 14 2019, @02:10AM
No I didn't, I just didn't care because it's among a wide array of things you've said with confidence and have no bearing on reality.
We know today what rates of natural hydrate emissions are at least within an order of magnitude, and they are not yet nearly approaching human emissions in scale. Check back with me on the whole "we're already locked in" schtick on our first blue ocean event.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by vux984 on Thursday November 14 2019, @02:16AM (9 children)
Ice ages are cyclic, but long period. We can 'get used to and deal with' most climate change that happens over 1000s of thousands of years.
What people are worried about now is an unnatural rate of change. We cannot deal with 1000 years worth of "natural climate change" unnaturally taking place every 10.
The other concern is that the ice age cycles still happen within certain ranges. What people are worried about here is that we are pushing outside those ranges to levels never seen before. Suppose we tip the scales into a runaway change which will not cycle back. Think ... Venus.
You are right that its a mistake to equate the fact that things are a little warmer or colder or simply different than they were 100 years ago in some place with a problem that needs massive human intervention to 'fix'. Some climate change is natural, and inevitable. Do you really believe climate scientists do not understand this?
Sure many ignorant common people on the climate change panic side can't tell the difference; and just think it should be 1995 forever or something. And they present useful idiots for the deniers to latch onto.
But the actual scientists, and the actual body of science that's been gathered here -- surely you don't think they're that clueless? They're accounting for that. They're seeing rates of change that aren't part of any natural cycle. They are seeing atmospheric compositions that haven't occurred in all the time humans have been around that are attributable to human activity. To think that because some ignorant folks think it can or should be 1995 forever that the whole body of science can be disregarded -- That just speaks to the 'deniers' side's own catastrophic wilful ignorance.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @02:28AM (6 children)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum [wikipedia.org]
Why it is the people screaming the loudest of the "horrors of climate change" are always the most ignorant in every related science field?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday November 14 2019, @05:28AM (4 children)
Seeing that you are somewhat informed (in contrast with the most ignorant), would you be so kind to tell how many humans where during that time?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @06:00AM (3 children)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Eocene_primates [wikipedia.org]
Dude, are you really arguing that your own species are stupider than THAT???
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday November 14 2019, @06:53AM (2 children)
I asked a question, you provided an answer (that gained your post a +Informative mod from me).
I think, dude, it's not very wise to waste of time/energy making assumptions beyond the face value of a textual comments.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @07:04AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian [wikipedia.org]
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @07:10AM
Not the above AC, but just wanted to thank you for your response. If more people acted like you we wouldn't be in the absurdity we're in today. Obviously this does not apply to you but a pattern that repeats over and over today is:
1) Somebody states a position.
2) Somebody asks a question. The question is intended to be rhetorical as it implies a refutation to #1.
3) It turns out the question was not rhetorical and has an answer that contradicts the implication of #2.
4) #2 disregards the new information and shifts the goal posts. Goto #2
I generally expect this pattern much more when somebody asks a question on a 'hot topic' as opposed to somebody genuinely asking a question.
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Thursday November 14 2019, @05:14PM
I'm not sure why you linked it paired with a shrill rant about ignorant people screaming?
Its a useful case study; and affirms a lot of what scientists believe will happen. (acidification of the oceans, temperature rises, etc). While mammals thrived, the deep ocean suffered a mass extinction.
But that peak still took over 20,000 years to form, rose the temperature 5-8 degrees over that time, and then lasted 200,000. And it had a very dramatic impact on the earth's biosphere.
Today carbon is released into the air at more than 10x the rate it was being added at its peak during the onset of that event, and it's currently still accelerating.
Geologically that was pretty quick, but its a slow burning candle compared to what's happening right now.
So what was your point exactly?
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday November 14 2019, @04:28AM (1 child)
Never seen before is, so far, an overstatement. Not seen since sometime before the dinosaur killer asteroid would, I think, be accurate, but I'd need to check.
Also, there have recently been claims that it might end up killing off humanity. I didn't check who the claims were by, since I really doubt that we'd let global warming get that bad without doing something like setting off a nuclear war that would probably cool things down...and probably end civilization, though not humanity, for good.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday November 14 2019, @04:24PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum [wikipedia.org] is estimated at about 10 million years after the dinosaur killer. While happening much slower the current change, it was still fairly quick and created lots of change.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @03:32AM (3 children)
lul
you are the epitome of someone just smart enough to have a clue yet too egotistical to know when you've exceeded your abilities
probably grew up and stayed in a smallish town where education is mocked and good ol' gut instinct is treated as sacrosanct, thus you never learned humility because no one ever put you in your place and now you're too old
(Score: 0, Troll) by Sally_G on Thursday November 14 2019, @04:06AM (2 children)
You start out right - I grew up in a small town of about 50,000. You're batting average needs to improve if you want to play with the big boys. My "place" is wherever the hell I decide it is, and it would take a small army of your type to change that. Ooops, my error. Make that a large army.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @08:02AM
Ah, so you're Runaway's troll account? Can't say I'm surprised, but you might want to pay better attention to your login :P
I knew this site was infested with trolls and shills, but still sad to have it proven. Doubly sad to see you so overwhelmed by a simple phrase which an emotionally stable person would realize was just a call for more humility. Your reaction just nails the point home and shows how you misconstrue intentions so drastically based on the persecution complex fed by extreme rightwing propaganda.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @08:03AM
Well, shit! I grew up in a town of 24, including dogs and chickens, and when on to complete a doctorate. Of course, there were some stupid people in my hometown, and a couple of really dumb hounddogs, not to mention the mindless Trump-supporting Chickens. Mostly, the Chickens were in favor of the China embargos and tariffs. They had no sympathy for ducks.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday November 14 2019, @03:17PM (2 children)
Hell no. Already underway? Definitely. Self-sustaining? Probably. Irreversible? No way. We have already altered the climate once by accident, we could do it again deliberately, in the opposite direction, if we so desired.
I predict that if our industrial / technological society survives the next hundred years, we will end up with technologies, tools and methods in place to control the Earth's climate like a domestic thermostat. In fact I believe this is what we should be working towards.
With solar shades and mirrors and fine control over atmospheric composition and whatever other awesome new technology the next century brings, we could pick and choose what sort of climate conditions we want and where and for how long, to best suit the needs of the human race and all other residents of the planet. All we need is cool science and political will, and I believe the upcoming generations will have those in spades.
We will also have to abandon any deference to the Gaian notion of nature. This new, managed world will not be "natural", Gaia will have to be managed and stewarded, but that doesn't mean we can't respect wildlife and wilderness. It just means that it will have to exist on our terms, in whatever space we choose to give it. Which, if we're honest, is pretty much how things are already, it's just that we do it now without the application any kind of strategy, wisdom or benevolence. Let's just hope our great great grandchildren can be more responsible with this power than we have been.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 14 2019, @03:32PM (1 child)
Five thumbs up, for thinking outside the box. Shades and mirrors - in one discussion or another, we've touched on them. I like the idea.
But, realistically, how far away is a working model? And then, a full deployment?
And, I gotta jab at those who nay-say the Wall. If we can't build a little wall along our southern border, how are we going to build a huge project of shades and mirrors? That huge sunshade will be a more challenging project than a silly little wall extending a couple thousand miles!!
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Thursday November 14 2019, @06:56PM
It's not that we can't "build that wall", it's the question of whether we should. How effective would it be? What is the cost of making one that is effective? Is the cost of having an effective wall going to offset the cost of not having a wall?
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.