Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday November 14 2019, @12:31AM   Printer-friendly
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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by krishnoid on Thursday November 14 2019, @01:40AM (21 children)

    by krishnoid (1156) on Thursday November 14 2019, @01:40AM (#920136)

    People confuse the scientific concept of "proof" with the meaning that describes certainty and perfect reproducibility. It's odd, considering the other meaning of "proof" comes from the distant, unrelated field of ... mathematics.

    How about creating and consistently using a wholly different word that means precisely what it's supposed to mean in the scientific context? Reusing a single word in both lay and scientifically rigorous contexts, seems targeted at reinforcing this sort of problem.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Thursday November 14 2019, @02:11AM (4 children)

    by fido_dogstoyevsky (131) <axehandleNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday November 14 2019, @02:11AM (#920157)

    People confuse the scientific concept of "proof" with [mathematical proof]... How about creating and consistently using a wholly different word that means precisely what it's supposed to mean in the scientific context?...

    We replace "proof" with "evidence for" - doesn't really change anything in a conversation with a science denier. They're still going to reject anything other than absolute proof (in the mathematical sense).

    --
    It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
    • (Score: 2) by krishnoid on Thursday November 14 2019, @02:44AM

      by krishnoid (1156) on Thursday November 14 2019, @02:44AM (#920166)

      At least we wouldn't be using "proof" or "law" in scientific discussions. Plus, you can then drop something on their head, and remind them that gravity isn't "proven" or a "law" in the mathematical sense, just a repeatable observation.

    • (Score: 2) by Coward, Anonymous on Thursday November 14 2019, @03:58AM (2 children)

      by Coward, Anonymous (7017) on Thursday November 14 2019, @03:58AM (#920191) Journal

      You are wrong. I think climate stuff is way over-hyped, but smog, non-CO2 pollutants, and pesticides should be carefully regulated.

      • (Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Thursday November 14 2019, @10:52PM (1 child)

        by fido_dogstoyevsky (131) <axehandleNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday November 14 2019, @10:52PM (#920533)

        You are wrong. I think climate stuff is way over-hyped...

        No.

        I was talking about science deniers in general, by the way.

        ...non-CO2 pollutants, and pesticides should be carefully regulated.

        And in the more civilised parts of the world they are (with some exceptions as government regulators fail to recognise the gaps in their competence).

        --
        It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
        • (Score: 2) by Coward, Anonymous on Thursday November 14 2019, @11:20PM

          by Coward, Anonymous (7017) on Thursday November 14 2019, @11:20PM (#920542) Journal

          Pardon my confusion, but in TFA climate, vaccine, and evolution skeptics all lumped together. My point was that it's possible to be one of the three.
            BTW, you shouldn't call people "deniers".

  • (Score: 2) by Coward, Anonymous on Thursday November 14 2019, @04:06AM (4 children)

    by Coward, Anonymous (7017) on Thursday November 14 2019, @04:06AM (#920195) Journal

    There is no scientific "proof". There is only evidence. Once you've piled up enough, your theory is solid but might still be adjusted in the future.

    • (Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday November 14 2019, @06:49PM (3 children)

      by Arik (4543) on Thursday November 14 2019, @06:49PM (#920462) Journal
      "There is no scientific "proof.""

      I can't agree.

      Proof is from the same root as prove, obviously, and to prove is to try, to test. Something which is proven is something which has been tested and passed, and testing things is CENTRAL to science.

      And to engineering as well. So for instance with a military firearm, the manufacturer sends them to the military, and they have armorers go through them, one by one, unpack, check to make sure that everything that's supposed to be there is there, then load a few test rounds (overloads, expected to crack any parts that have been made from inferior materials etc.) and fire them off in a controlled environment. In short, someone tries it. Afterwards, someone inspects it for damage and tries the action again. If there's no detectable damage, and it's still cycling, and the spread was within specs, then it gets a mark to show it's been tried, proven, and accepted. This is called a "proof mark."

      Some forms of alcohol might come with something that bears the same name. It's a concept that holds sway across manufactured goods of many different kinds.

      So in that basic sense you could say that if a particular theory has been productive in science for a long time, without failing a prediction or failing to predict something it should be able to predict, we can say it's proven.

      But that is still no guarantee it won't become obsolete. Totally different concepts.

      Phlogiston chemistry was a proven thing, right up until it wasn't. Newtonian physics is no longer believed, by physicists, to be based on anything like sane assumptions. Yet it works, as long as you aren't doing a moon shot.

      The other form of proof we should consider is mathematical proof. A mathematical proof, given the soundness of the initial assumptions, should be essentially impossible to ever overthrow.

      Much of science consists of finding mathematical models that correspond to reality. But it's a mistake to think that proving your mathematical model means proving your application of that model.
      --
      If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
      • (Score: 2) by Coward, Anonymous on Thursday November 14 2019, @08:45PM (2 children)

        by Coward, Anonymous (7017) on Thursday November 14 2019, @08:45PM (#920490) Journal

        So in that basic sense you could say that if a particular theory has been productive in science for a long time, without failing a prediction or failing to predict something it should be able to predict, we can say it's proven.

        It is a semantic argument, but degrading the word "proof" to mean less than certainty is an insult to mathematics. The field has shown how it's done, and it's not their fault that perfection is often unattainable. That firearms makers and alcohol distillers play fast and loose with the word "proof" does not impress me. It sounds like a marketing term of yore.

        Saying that if confidence is at least X, something is proven is a mistake for any X less than 100 %. Medicine and climate science will want something low like X = 95% or 99%. Physics wants X=99.999% or higher. Mathematics wants X=100%. Who will be the judge of what is "proven"? Why should different fields of study have different standards? Mathematicians would laugh at the claim that something can be "proven" by only numerically testing the claim.

        Beyond the arbitrary confidence level, our scientific "proofs" are only valid in the present and things can change in ways that we never imagined. Why overstate confidence in something by saying it's "proven", which really implies that it can't be wrong? We have other words for that kind of confidence like "well tested", "tried-and-true", etc.

        • (Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday November 14 2019, @09:37PM (1 child)

          by Arik (4543) on Thursday November 14 2019, @09:37PM (#920512) Journal
          It's easy to be high and might in your mathematical ivory tower.

          Try to do science. Science isn't just math. It's finding the ways that math apply to reality.

          Your pure math may be 100% but any fool can be 100% when they're never tried, never proven.
          --
          If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
          • (Score: 2) by Coward, Anonymous on Thursday November 14 2019, @11:08PM

            by Coward, Anonymous (7017) on Thursday November 14 2019, @11:08PM (#920538) Journal

            I am a physicist, but long ago did many proofs for math homework... Knowing my own mortality makes me appreciate that mathematical truth deserves special recognition because it is forever. Everything else has a shelf life.

  • (Score: 3, Funny) by legont on Thursday November 14 2019, @05:02AM (9 children)

    by legont (4179) on Thursday November 14 2019, @05:02AM (#920210)

    Scientific truth is simply what the majority of experts - scientists working in the field - believe in. Why is that is easy to see. It's simply because nobody else can do better. This, by the way, is true for mathematical proof as well.

    Taking a random source...

    When you think about it, this is how things tend to work. A scientist discovers something she takes to be true and writes a paper explaining why she thinks it's true. Other scientists read her paper, run their own experiments and either validate her claims or are unable to invalidate her claims. These scientists then declare the theory "valid" or "significant" or give it some other stamp of approval. In most cases, this does not mean the theory is immune from falsification or to being disproved--it's not absolute. It just means that the majority of the scientific community that have studied the theory agree that it’s true given what they currently understand. This shared agreement creates a communal "truth" for those scientists. This is what led Richard Rorty to state the oft-quoted phrase, "Truth is what my colleagues will let me get away with."

    https://www.philosophynews.com/post/2015/01/29/What-is-Truth.aspx [philosophynews.com]

    --
    "Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
    • (Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday November 14 2019, @06:04AM (4 children)

      by Arik (4543) on Thursday November 14 2019, @06:04AM (#920222) Journal
      "Scientific truth is simply what the majority of experts - scientists working in the field - believe in."

      I can't tell if you're really that profoundly misinformed, or if you're just parodying people who are.
      --
      If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @09:15AM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @09:15AM (#920269)

        This is interesting. He is 100% correct on topics that rely on anything other than first principles, and that's very near 100% of science today.

        As an example it's too easy to pick on the social sciences so let's pick on something real. Everybody knows at least "of" relativity as well as quantum mechanics. And each of these fields match observation with 100% accuracy. That's something that cannot be said for nearly any other field, where these issues become exponentially more relevant. But the funny thing is is that relativity and quantum mechanics make fundamentally different assumptions which are mutually incompatible. So one, or both, theories are incorrect in their present state. It's the same reason that e.g. Newtonian mechanics was known to be incorrect or incomplete long before Einstein had even entered into the picture. Our observation of Mercury was off. It's orbital trajectory was about 1/100th of a degree per century different than what Newtonian mechanics would predict. In "real" science, even such small differences are critical.

        And so what is held to be true is something we know to be, at the minimum, incomplete and very possibly simply incorrect.

        And that is for the epitome of good science. When you look at things such as social science or indeed even climate science we start entering into the realm of correlation is not causation, except when we we need it to be for a field to exist. Climate science for instance is based, to some degree on principles. For instance it's trivial to prove that e.g. carbon dioxide can trap heart in Earth's atmosphere. It tends to be nonresponsive to high frequency energy (such as the ultraviolent energy emitted by the sun), yet it tends to react with and reflect some chunk of low frequency energy (such as infrared which is reemitted by the Earth after absorbing said ultraviolet energy). But how this exact mechanism functions at scale is something where you end up adding many unproven assumptions and then further relying on models that are based entirely on correlations. And on top of this there are also of course vast numbers of 'known unknowns' in that we know this system is doing 'something' but don't have any great way of compensating for it.

        All of this ends up creating a science where what is taken is fact is largely a matter of consensus, not fact. For instance Richard Lindzen [wikipedia.org] is one of the premier scientists in atmospheric mechanics. He worked on numerous IPCC papers and was a lead author on their "Climate Processes and Feedbacks" section, is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, a fellow of the American Meteorological Society, consultant for NASA's Global Modeling and Simulation Group, insert appeal to authority, insert appeal to authority, etc. Nonetheless he believes the current models we are using are fundamentally flawed and has provided somewhat extensive evidence and logic for such, including the publication of multiple books on the topic. However it's not really possible to prove him correct, nor current models incorrect, since we just don't have enough data and climatology isn't a field where you run meaningful experiments. So what's determined to be true or false ends up being prevailing opinion often mixed with social pressures and propaganda. E.g. look at his Wiki page itself. In spite of his credentials and achievements, vast space is consumed in Lindzen's Wiki page is spent trying to discredit him or to make him appear a fool by taking comments out of context and spinning things in a rather disingenuous fashion. To emphasize this disagreement isn't some mild nuance, I'll close with a couple of quotes from him:

        In brief, we have the new paradigm where simulation and programs have replaced theory and observation, where government largely determines the nature of scientific activity, and where the primary role of professional societies is the lobbying of the government for special advantage.

        What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO2 from human industry was a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world - that CO2, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison.

        • (Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday November 14 2019, @02:25PM (2 children)

          by Arik (4543) on Thursday November 14 2019, @02:25PM (#920337) Journal
          Much of what you say seems correct, however;

          "This is interesting. He is 100% correct on topics that rely on anything other than first principles, and that's very near 100% of science today."

          No, he's 100% wrong. Flat wrong. Not even in the right ballpark wrong. Voting is not a part of the scientific method. Consensus is not part of the scientific method. That's how questions of church dogma are settled - by vote of the Bishops - it's not a procedure that has any basis or place in science whatsoever.

          Furthermore, he's even more wrong because he's created this concept of "scientific truth" which also doesn't fit. Sure, truth has some meaning in science, as in it's absolutely essential to be true/honest in your reporting, but that's not what he's talking about. What he appears to have done is to paste the religious concept of truth into a supposedly scientific context where it has no place, and then pasted a religious procedure into science in order to provide something science simply doesn't provide, doesn't aim to provide.

          The Church claims to provide ultimate truth, and it determines the truth by polling Bishops. Science does not claim to provide ultimate truth, and voting plays no role in it. Science does not provide the truth. Science provides us a way to detect errors. Quite different things.

          People have a hunger that leads to religion. Just a few centuries ago, science was commonly posted as opposite religion, as competing with it. So as science exposed flaws, untruths in traditional religion, traditional religion weakened, many abandoned it. But they didn't lose that hunger, and many wound up making a new religion from the trappings of science. We can call it "scientism." It's conceptually similar to a cargo cult. It's a religion, not science, quite radically incompatible with science actually. It treats those with sciency job titles as priests, and bishops; it expects truth to be set by bull or council, and it is eager to excommunicate the heterodox. Despite the 'sciency' window dressing this really has nothing to do with science, it's just the same old religious instinct dressed up in a new lab coat. Science is fundamentally heterodox.

          Posing science as opposed to religion was a mistake in the first place. You can see in context of the times why it went that way. Religions were very old and stuffy and full of dogma that was demonstrably wrong. Science is good at demonstrating that wrongness. As scientific thinking became more common, skepticism of the old religious bull grew.

          But science isn't religion, and cannot replace religion. When you turn science into a religion, you wind up with a religion, but no science.

          --
          If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
          • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @06:05PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @06:05PM (#920448)

            Of course I completely and 100% agree with you.

            I am using terms in the colloquial sense, as I assume the person speaking to you was as well. Obviously there is no such thing as a scientific truth. Even a law is simply a physical observation which may not actually hold in all circumstances. But we have entered into a world where a whole lot of people with no scientific background or understanding whatsoever are suddenly becoming quite involved in scientific issues. And so, even if I may disagree with their usage of language, I've found when faced with an avalanche of ignorance it's often much better to simply hop on and slide alongside it hoping to convince some folks on the way down, rather than to stand it front of it and hope to turn it aside by force of will alone.

            In particular notions such as a "scientific consensus" is something that runs contrary to every single value we might find in science. But of course that's quite challenging to explain and generally not going to be well received by somebody with a limited scientific background. And so I find it's more effective to take the path of less resistance and accept such notions while emphasizing their inherent weakness.

            • (Score: 1) by Arik on Thursday November 14 2019, @06:30PM

              by Arik (4543) on Thursday November 14 2019, @06:30PM (#920459) Journal
              I suppose, on the tactical question, it depends on the audience.

              Figuring that, it's nearly a tautology that you have to be right for certain audiences.

              Still not a fan of it. I really think you get better results long term by telling the truth, even to people that aren't ready to handle it. Sure, make it just as simple as possible, but no simpler.

              To me, what you're saying seems suspiciously like you're making it simpler than possible.

              Anyway, good post, good contribution, well thought out. You should really get a nick.
              --
              If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    • (Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @06:26AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @06:26AM (#920226)

      Presently, no amount of scientific expertise and international fame can protect anyone who dares step out of party line, from a no-holds-barred coordinated media attack. What percent of todays scientists are independently wealthy to the level that they can speak their mind when it guarantees them a Berufsverbot?

      One can take election results in the USSR and tell that 99.8% populace undying love to Communist Party is "scientific truth", just as reasonably.

      • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Thursday November 14 2019, @10:19AM (1 child)

        by maxwell demon (1608) on Thursday November 14 2019, @10:19AM (#920280) Journal

        What percent of todays scientists are independently wealthy to the level that they can speak their mind when it guarantees them a Berufsverbot?

        German professors cannot be fired for saying the wrong thing. The only way for them to get fired is if they do an actual crime.

        Indeed, in Germany the freedom of science is right in the constitution.

        So much for using the German word “Berufsverbot” in this context.

        --
        The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @09:04PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @09:04PM (#920499)

          Hence the term of trade.
          Learn recent history, so that the consequences of replaying it won't come as complete surprise.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @08:20AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @08:20AM (#920257)

      In most cases, this does not mean the theory is immune from falsification or to being disproved--it's not absolute.

      One would hope not. If a "theory" is not falsifiable, it's not a theory and it's not science.

  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday November 14 2019, @05:38AM

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 14 2019, @05:38AM (#920215) Journal

    How about creating and consistently using a wholly different word that means precisely what it's supposed to mean in the scientific context? Reusing a single word in both lay and scientifically rigorous contexts, seems targeted at reinforcing this sort of problem.

    Ummm... what's this hacking approach that you suggest? (large grin)

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford