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: 2) by Mojibake Tengu on Thursday November 14 2019, @06:32AM (7 children)

    by Mojibake Tengu (8598) on Thursday November 14 2019, @06:32AM (#920227) Journal

    Reality check: How many European countries are actually monarchies?
    Does feudalism count as a democracy, if serfs can vote for bailiffs?
    Does the advancement of this creepy corporate democratic feudalism to creepy socialist oligarchy neofeudalism count as progress?
    And 141 years old Social Democratic party in Czech Republic collapsed recently, fallen under the electoral treshold.
    It is the systemic divergence from reality, which destroys the West.
    Science is just a collateral victim.

    --
    Respect Authorities. Know your social status. Woke responsibly.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday November 14 2019, @07:12AM (6 children)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 14 2019, @07:12AM (#920238) Journal

    Reality check: How many European countries are actually monarchies?

    Modern constitutional monarchies have nothing wrong. I can argue based on the evidence and direct experience that it actually provides the same necessary checks and balances a presidency has and saves the waste of time/money/public attention spent on the additional electoral issues.

    I'm living in Australia, which has the prime-minister as the person de-facto in charge with the executive, with the "governor" (the representative of the monarch) only in charge with kicking out an unruly parliament (if it happens) and trigering new elections. On the American continent, Canada is the same. Japan is the same. Fer fuck sake, even Thailand has more troubles due to its military than from its monarch.

    What the fuck argument is that? Do you have examples of things going wrong because of the constitutional monarchies in the modern era?

    Does feudalism count as a democracy, if serfs can vote for bailiffs?
    Does the advancement of this creepy corporate democratic feudalism to creepy socialist oligarchy neofeudalism count as progress?
    And 141 years old Social Democratic party in Czech Republic collapsed recently, fallen under the electoral treshold.
    It is the systemic divergence from reality, which destroys the West.
    Science is just a collateral victim.

    Apologies, but to my understanding this comes as quite an incoherent rant.
    The fuck if I know what "creepy corporate democratic feudalism" and "creepy socialist oligarchy neofeudalism" can mean and what is the relevance in the context of an old party going extinct. It resembles pretty much the Chewbacca defense, and beat me if I'm going to accept the "You must acq..."... err, sorry... "Science is just a collateral victim" conclusion.

    Would you be so kind to rephrase and make your point clearer?

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 2) by Mojibake Tengu on Thursday November 14 2019, @08:39AM (5 children)

      by Mojibake Tengu (8598) on Thursday November 14 2019, @08:39AM (#920258) Journal

      Modern constitutional monarchies have nothing wrong.

      This is the moment where you lost me.
      To make my point clearer: It is all about sovereignty and ownership of people.

      --
      Respect Authorities. Know your social status. Woke responsibly.
      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday November 14 2019, @09:13AM (4 children)

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 14 2019, @09:13AM (#920268) Journal

        To make my point clearer: It is all about sovereignty and ownership of people.

        Which has nothing to do with modern constitutional monarchies [wikipedia.org].
        Saying so it's like saying the umpire/referee or any kind of role that oversees the rules of a sport is owning the two teams/contestants over the duration of a game and imposes a tyranny on the players who can no longer be sovereign over their body. When it's actually just an impartial observer that blow the whistle when the game departs from the rules agreed before the game began.

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 2) by Mojibake Tengu on Thursday November 14 2019, @10:09AM (3 children)

          by Mojibake Tengu (8598) on Thursday November 14 2019, @10:09AM (#920279) Journal

          I do not accept the concept of modern constitutional monarchy. To me, it is a lie. I see the purpose of this lie: 1. to placate subjects by illusion of freedom, like providing a wider corral to livestock 2. shift burden of control to controlling them indirectly instead of directly. Did you forgot you actually live in a former penal colony for exile prisoners?

          I do not accept representative democracy either. That's not a real democracy, but a fake one. It is fake by pre-selection of candidates who are granted the privilegium of candidacy.

          What I do accept: direct democracy. Every human should have right to participate individually and directly in all decisions which are important to him, to people close to him and his fate.

          It is a completely different topology of control. Not a hierarchy. Those, who decide to go into a war, should go first.

          --
          Respect Authorities. Know your social status. Woke responsibly.
          • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday November 14 2019, @11:43AM (2 children)

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 14 2019, @11:43AM (#920293) Journal

            I do not accept the concept of modern constitutional monarchy. To me, it is a lie.

            You can bring horse to the water...
            Well, son, it it what it is, whether you accept it or not.

            I see the purpose of this lie: 1. to placate subjects by illusion of freedom, like providing a wider corral to livestock 2. shift burden of control to controlling them indirectly instead of directly.

            Well, dream on. You won't find pure freedom ever on Earth.
            Whenever you live with just one other human around, your freedom is already gone, you will need to make compromises to live together. Yes, sure, in two, it will be each of you to give up to a part of the freedom in exchange of living together.
            Even more so with hundreds - you already need a set of rules to negotiate and reach the compromise.
            A lot more of that freedom lost when you need to live with millions. Those rules to reach the compromise are a lot more inflexible and hard to change (it's called constitution and legal system). That's when you'll also see a perpetual "fringe", it is impossible to keep everyone happy with one compromise or another.

            Billions? Heh, that's virtually impossible to keep everyone satisfied with any degree of freedom available.

            Did you forgot you actually live in a former penal colony for exile prisoners?

            And this is relevant... exactly how?

            What I do accept: direct democracy.

            I'd like to experience it too.
            But I'm not sure you will actually like it if you get to live it - too much individualism and intransigence expressed in your opinions until know, I'm not sure you can accept the level of compromises a direct democracy requires.

            --
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @12:53PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @12:53PM (#920315)

              Problem: direct democracy doesn't scale.
              At best, it might work at the town (not city) level.
              We delegate things in order to get them done.
              Judging by the effects of referenda in California, I'm on the fence of declaring them good or bad. It may be a wash.

              • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday November 14 2019, @02:03PM

                by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 14 2019, @02:03PM (#920328) Journal

                Problem: direct democracy doesn't scale.

                It scales well enough to the size of Switzerland cantons. Not a pure direct democracy at the federal level, but strong instruments for the local level to have a say about the federal one. Internet may help on the technical side of scaling up, but that's the easy problem in the matter of scaling.

                Speaking personally, I'm on the fence on the balance between different levels of locality in a direct democracy.
                On the "strong federal level" extreme - too much variation in interests across geographies, traditions, even cultures - melting them in the federal pot is likely to be hurtful for the local level more often than not.
                On the other extreme with a strong local (as local as county?) level, too many individual directions limit the projects that does require national level participation.

                Besides, there's the matter of the big business vs civil governance - there are enough corporations able to literally buy entire counties (or small/economic weak countries). If that starts happening, "divided we fall" is an inevitable end to it - corporatist feudalism will become a reality (you may think that a "company town" the size of one country is a dystopia. Just don't tell me it's an impossible one, Apple's cash stash [cnbc.com] can buy the Puerto Rico's bond debt three times over [wikipedia.org] and is 25 times the GDP of Rwanda for 2017 [google.com])

                --
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford