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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @02:37PM (2 children)
Imagine I claim to have developed an AI that can predict the stock market. All I really did was look at past gains of the market and adjust them forward in an adjusted linear fashion. Any predictions this model would provide would be completely useless. But, by the standard of "well the market went up" it would almost certainly also be correct. Until it wasn't. So can I now claim any doubt towards the veracity of my model is simple "science denialism" so long as the market goes up? And when it does finally go down... well I hope I've earned enough money peddling my model by then!
Nobody with even the most basic understanding of our earth's climatic history would deny that we're in a warming phase. Similarly, but more controversially somehow, the Earth would also be warming even if humans did not exist. Of course we are almost certainly exasperating the warming rate, but what matters is precisely to what degree and to precisely what climatic end. The IPCC model was not just a little wrong. We're not saying 'well they missed the bulls-eye' so it must be wrong. It was so far off the mark that the question we're debating is whether it was even in the vicinity of the board itself. You have to adjust the data somewhat substantially to argue that it was.
Wanting to restructure all of society in a way that would undoubtedly be horrifically damaging to economic progress and development of the world, based on these models, is insane. This may not always be the case and indeed should the models start to prove themselves to be consistently accurate then it would be something to consider. But for now all we have are extremely inaccurate models paired with sensationalism and hyperbole.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday November 14 2019, @04:24PM (1 child)
Citation needed. There's no evidence that a green economy is "horrifically damaging" to anything other than the profits of certain fossil fuel companies.
"Even as some commentators insist that nothing short of a total rethink of free-market economics and corporate structures is required to stave off global catastrophe, the Danish capital’s carbon transformation has happened alongside a 25% growth in its economy over two decades. Copenhagen’s experience will be a model for other world cities."
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/oct/11/inside-copenhagens-race-to-be-the-first-carbon-neutral-city [theguardian.com]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @04:56PM
Denmark is a modern, tiny, rich, and extremely well developed nation with favorable geographic features. I completely agree that such nations transitioning to a much smaller, or even 0, footprint is entirely possible (and desirable). Though as the article mentions, many claims are currently still fudged a bit. For instance Copenhagen has chosen not to count the Copenhagen airport in their emission measurements. But the real catch is sitting right in front of you, if you're at your desk. Or in your kitchen or living room. Look at all of your nice little products and niceties. Where were they made? Certainly not Denmark. It's actually quite remarkable how high our (developed world as a whole) carbon footprints are given we've gone very much post-industrial and outsource much if not the majority of our pollution.
To the point though places like China, East Europe, India, and even Africa are still in their infancy. As these regions develop you're going to see both an increase in industrialization and an increase in a middle class consuming all the things they now disproportionately ship out to us. To say they have to do this while maintaining 0 or near 0 emissions is equally unfair and unrealistic. It's just not going to happen. And similarly these nations are huge relative to the US, let alone when we went through mass-industrialization. And so because of this even low emissions from them has a huge footprint. For instance our CO2 emissions/capita are well over 200% of China's, yet of course China is ends up responsible for well over twice our total emissions - simply because they have 1.4 billion people using energy compared to our 330 million. And over in Africa you're looking at 1.3 billion and then another 1.4 billion in India. And these nations are going to grow, industrialized, consume, and pollute.
Even a 'green funding' system would never work. Even if we could domestically agree to offer such (which is highly questionable), these developing nations would not accept it (with strict constraints) because it would create a relationship of dependency. And we absolutely would abuse that dependency, sooner or later. Imagine if e.g. China's power industry today was dependent on US handouts.