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: 5, Insightful) by Unixnut on Thursday November 14 2019, @11:41AM (3 children)
One big problem I have is that from what I can see, "climate science" is more like "economic science" than what you would consider proper scientists. Its a game of statistics and probability, with divination thrown in. They try to develop models of complex systems (be it the economy or the climate) in order to predict the future.
However at their core it is just a wild guess based on a horribly incomplete data set, and should be treated as such. Especially as the problem with these "statistics based sciences" is that statistics are easy to manipulate to say you want. This makes the field really easy to corrupt.
You see, scientists are not gods, they are humans, and like most humans they can be corrupted. They have to consider their careers and family. They desire funding, they chase patrons, they write papers for money/grants, or to please someone who has the influence they need, etc...
There is a lot of money sloshing around in "climate science", because there is a lot of vested interests on both sides who stand to gain a lot by things going their way. It is a highly politicised field, where saying the wrong thing can get you fired, or your grants not renewed, or being taken off prestigious projects that could help your career. What the "wrong thing" is depends on who your benefactor is, so many will not rock the boat for fear of their financial well being.
The bigger problem to me at least, is not the field of climate science, but the environmentalists. They are the ones who have elevated climate science to a religion. My arguments for calling it a religion are as follows:
* It is faith based. Very rarely do environmentalists appeal to logic, they mostly appeal to emotions and melodramatic exaggerations. Also, the use of terms of "climate believer" and "climate denier" have religious overtones, similar to the "believers" and "deniers" of god used by other religions.
* They have their clergy: That would be climate scientists, and even then, usually only the climate scientists that reinforce their beliefs. Those that go against the prevailing narrative, or are not supportive enough of it, get pilloried as "deniers" or "paid shills", and ostracized. Its a self reinforcing echo chamber, as scientists don't want their careers ruined by being ostracized, they are more likely to support the narrative out of a desire of their own self preservation.
* They change the narrative to fit the prevailing situation. Originally it was to be global ice age, then it was to be global warming, then cooling again, then when it was warming, after they decided to just change it to "climate change" because it was becoming clear they had no idea what will actually happen, except that there will be change.
* Preaching the "end of times"/apocalypse: Quite common in all religions. "Do as I say or the world will end in $x years". It seems the "climate doomsday" is almost as old as the second industrial revolution. There being reports of the world ending "in 20 years" since the 1900s. None of the predictions came true, but it doesn't stop them just saying they got the timing wrong, adjusting the model, and trying again.
* They seem to have their symbol/representative to rally around now, in the form of Greta.
* The concept of indulgences for eco sins (e.g. in the form of paying for carbon credits to offset your existence)
* Likewise the concept of penance, and public shaming those who do not repent.
* They preach a lot to the unconverted, spreading their gospel. They get increasingly aggressive and irate towards those who "do not see the light", or who challenge them, or who quite frankly are not interested in their religion. As a result, a lot of people will agree to be "believers", but only in the superficial sense (mostly to get the preachers off their back). They believe in climate change insofar as it does not affect the way they live or demands any sacrifices from them. If it does, then you start to see protests and objections.
* They have their own opinions on how others should live, how many kids to have, what to eat, and how the world should be ruled and run. Concepts of population control, control of free movement, control of available food, etc... like most religions, generally a very strong authoritarian mindset.
* Once they gain power, they use it to force others to conform to their beliefs against their will, "for the greater good".
Interestingly a lot of the rules above don't seem to apply to those at the top, who are known for jetting in private planes to climate conferences. Greta at least tries to sail to them, but that ignores the emissions required to build and maintain the $1,000,000+ yacht in the first place. I guess this is the idea behind the "indulgences" in the form of climate credits. The rich can carry on enjoying modern life, while the rest of us have to return to the days of feudal peasants.
It seems to me that a lot of humans have a deep seated psychological need for religion, and with the old religions withering away in the western world due to secularism/atheism, new ones are springing up, religions in all but name in my opinion. Environmentalism is one such example.
I would go as far to say as "techno fetisists" is another (the belief that computers/technology/AI will solve all of mankinds problems and usher in some post-singularity immortality for the faithful) is another, but they are not today's topic.
Problem with religions is, eventually they get subverted by those who crave power. Who will then form political structures to enforce their power (under the banner of the religion), and then try spread the religion far and wide in order to gain more power. It usually doesn't end well for the masses.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @02:44PM
Greta did sail to the conference but... https://apnews.com/be12be49011743daaa3646edb0de0b61/ [apnews.com]
They had to fly a crew over to bring their multi-million dollar yacht back.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @05:04PM
The future is indeed hard to predict. However, the trend of the actual (now and past) CO2 increase and temperature increase strongly suggests the future will stay pretty much on that course.
It's not rational to not do anything about it UNLESS we have 100% proof first. The rational thing is to assume the trend is likely to continue at roughly the same rate since the forces causing it are not going away.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @05:45PM
Jefferson in his famous, 'Notes on the State of Virginia' [wikipedia.org] also referenced climate change:
The changes Jefferson mentioned mostly predated the industrial revolution, yet were quite rapid and severe in presentation. And there's 0 reason to doubt the accuracy of what he said. Yet were a person of the 'climate religion' to observe such changes today they would immediately begin to become frantic fearing it's finally happening with Virginia on track to become a desolate desert in but a matter of decades. No doubt the media would be certain to repeat such a message 24/7.
I find it difficult to imagine it's only a coincidence that as we've abandoned our religions of the past, so many new views and values have emerged that are very much taking the exact same form as religions. It's probably something inherent in humans to want to worship an unquestionable ideology. Perhaps it works as a cornerstone from which one can find comfort and sanctity, even if (like religions of the past) it's busy telling you you were going to go the metaphorical hell if you didn't spend every waking moment freaking out in the name of said ideology.