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: 5, Insightful) by vux984 on Thursday November 14 2019, @02:16AM (9 children)

    by vux984 (5045) on Thursday November 14 2019, @02:16AM (#920160)

    Then you can't take a brief couple hundred years of sweet climate, and state "This is how climate should be - MUST BE!"

    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.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @02:28AM (6 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @02:28AM (#920163)

    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)

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 14 2019, @05:28AM (#920214) Journal

      Why it is the people screaming the loudest of the "horrors of climate change" are always the most ignorant in every related science field?

      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)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @06:00AM (#920221)

        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)

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 14 2019, @06:53AM (#920233) Journal

          Dude, are you really arguing that your own species are stupider than THAT???

          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

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @07:04AM (#920235)
          • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @07:10AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @07:10AM (#920237)

            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

      by vux984 (5045) on Thursday November 14 2019, @05:14PM (#920411)

      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)

    by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 14 2019, @04:28AM (#920201) Journal

    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

      by dry (223) on Thursday November 14 2019, @04:24PM (#920392) Journal

      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.

      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.