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: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @01:43AM (5 children)
The dichotomy goes beyond the science. It also involves solutions.
On one side: None of this climate change stuff exists.
On the other side: We face a climate disaster, so we must do everything! We can hand over American money to corrupt 3rd-world nations to give them green technology. We can create carbon trading, so the high-frequency traders can get their cut of the economy and cause a flash crash whenever they feel like doing so. We must tax and regulate industry until it 100% moves to countries that don't give a damn, and then use foreign ships burning oil (ours will be electric and only serve domestic routes) to supply Walmart and Amazon. After the economy collapses under all that, we'll just tax the "rich" (40th percentile and above) to fund fake jobs for our worker's paradise.
So if that is the choice I'm given, what am I going to say? The option to say "climate change is real and we're not going to do a damn thing" is not on the table.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @04:40AM
Those are some fabulous strawmen you've got there.
Did you make those up all by yourself? I'm sure mom is so proud of you!
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Thursday November 14 2019, @10:34AM (3 children)
I spot a false dichotomy right in your argument. What doesn't appear in your choice of options is: “Climate change is real, and we apply reasonable measures to fight it, because if we do nothing then things get worse than if we apply those measures.”
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @12:31PM (2 children)
This third option is not being sold to the public.
"Reasonable measures." This is an undefined term and our opinions of what this is are bound to differ.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @12:37PM (1 child)
Stop listening to Fox News denials. ALL solutions we have are extremely reasonable. All solutions being implemented in the world are extremely reasonable. Like, you know, insulate your fucking house - if you spend more than $100/mo on heating or cooling your house, your house is wasting energy. But I know denialists that would spend $2000+ on yearly heating/cooling costs while moaning how adding R40 insulation on their roof for $1000 is too fucking expensive.
The only unreasonable solution is sold by Fox News propagandists.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @09:14PM
Please! The low hanging fruit has already been picked. You aren't going to "save the earth" by taking a bus instead of driving your car.
What is needed to make a dent in the problem will require technological revolutions, not small personal gestures.