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: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @04:39AM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @04:39AM (#920204)

    It's apparent that you are a legend in your own mind.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @07:57AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @07:57AM (#920249)

    At the same time, the posts of TMB display a constant and troubling lack of awareness of basic concepts. He may be "smart", but he definitely is "stupid". Only such a "brilliant" libertarian could fail to understand the function of society, the need to share risk, and contribute based on ability to do so. Evidently he does so in his personal life, what with the Church conversion, but is unable to make the step to abstract thought, and the notion of Social Justice. Too bad, we will have to tax him all the same, and tax him more for being stupid, in spite of his "High IQ".

    [Note, they tested my IQ once. Broke the scale. And I killed everyone in the testing center, so no one would ever know. So I am smarter than you, TMB, just pray you never have to find out.]

  • (Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday November 14 2019, @02:19PM

    by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Thursday November 14 2019, @02:19PM (#920333) Journal

    For some reason I am reminded of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-LTRwZb35A [youtube.com]

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 15 2019, @01:17AM

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday November 15 2019, @01:17AM (#920564) Homepage Journal

    Not especially. There're plenty of people out there as smart or smarter than I am just by sheer population numbers. NCommander's one of them. Besides which, it doesn't make me a better human being, happier, richer, better hung, or anything else but smarter. It's no different than saying "I'm very tall". That's nice and all but it's mostly just annoying unless it's currently relevant, like when you need to reach something on the top shelf.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.