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, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @03:51AM (2 children)
"3 sigma above the mean predicted temperature rise curves"
Wow that sounds bad.
Until,
"40 years ago."
The mean prediction from 40 years ago is probably negative. Forty years ago many climate scientists were predicting an imminent ice age.
So what is this "mean" and how much is a "sigma" ?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @02:15PM (1 child)
So fun explaining science to people that don't understand statistics...
A mean is what you probably think of as an average, that is add all the things, and divide by the number of things (unless we are talking geometric mean). In statistics, there are many averages, and mean is one of them, you may also have heard of median (the data point at the 50th percentile) and mode (the region of the data space that most things seem to fall into).
A sigma is a measure of the "tightness" of the data around that mean, I wont get all mathy on what it means, but 93% of the data will be within 3 sigma (assuming a normal, or bell-curve, distribution) of the mean.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @04:14PM
For a pedantic little turd you have very poor reading comprehension.
The question was What is this mean. Requires a numerical answer.
How much is a "sigma"? is a quantitative question. Also requires a numerical answer.
The obvious inability to quantitatively answer a simple question about data you are quoting is just another reason people don't believe your hype.
So I'll ask again. What was this mean of the predicted temperature rise 40 years ago? And what is the value of the sigma that we are three of above that mean? Answer in degrees please, and specify fahrenheit or celsius.