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: 3, Insightful) by LVDOVICVS on Thursday November 14 2019, @01:42AM (2 children)
I like what I once heard John Cleese say; "Science is a method of investigation, not a belief system."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @12:39PM (1 child)
Mostly true but a little false.
I can't personally replicate 99.9% of what I am told is true by science, so I have to take it on faith that it is true.
If it makes logical sense to me, great, but entire fields of science don't pass that bar. Quantum physics, anyone? Yes, you can demonstrate to someone the double slit experiment, but even that is unlikely to happen. 99.9% of people will just hear about it on TV, from a friend, or read about it in a magazine. It's up to them to believe it or not or just disregard any thought of it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @12:46PM
Sorry, but to prove my own point about how hard it is for the average person to replicate scientific results, the double slit experiment would only show me that light is a wave.
To empirically show that light also has a particle-like aspect, I would need a photon detector at the slits, something that is beyond the average person.