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, @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???

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

    Total Score:   1  
  • (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.