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: 4, Interesting) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday November 14 2019, @03:17PM (2 children)
Hell no. Already underway? Definitely. Self-sustaining? Probably. Irreversible? No way. We have already altered the climate once by accident, we could do it again deliberately, in the opposite direction, if we so desired.
I predict that if our industrial / technological society survives the next hundred years, we will end up with technologies, tools and methods in place to control the Earth's climate like a domestic thermostat. In fact I believe this is what we should be working towards.
With solar shades and mirrors and fine control over atmospheric composition and whatever other awesome new technology the next century brings, we could pick and choose what sort of climate conditions we want and where and for how long, to best suit the needs of the human race and all other residents of the planet. All we need is cool science and political will, and I believe the upcoming generations will have those in spades.
We will also have to abandon any deference to the Gaian notion of nature. This new, managed world will not be "natural", Gaia will have to be managed and stewarded, but that doesn't mean we can't respect wildlife and wilderness. It just means that it will have to exist on our terms, in whatever space we choose to give it. Which, if we're honest, is pretty much how things are already, it's just that we do it now without the application any kind of strategy, wisdom or benevolence. Let's just hope our great great grandchildren can be more responsible with this power than we have been.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 14 2019, @03:32PM (1 child)
Five thumbs up, for thinking outside the box. Shades and mirrors - in one discussion or another, we've touched on them. I like the idea.
But, realistically, how far away is a working model? And then, a full deployment?
And, I gotta jab at those who nay-say the Wall. If we can't build a little wall along our southern border, how are we going to build a huge project of shades and mirrors? That huge sunshade will be a more challenging project than a silly little wall extending a couple thousand miles!!
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Thursday November 14 2019, @06:56PM
It's not that we can't "build that wall", it's the question of whether we should. How effective would it be? What is the cost of making one that is effective? Is the cost of having an effective wall going to offset the cost of not having a wall?
Answer now is don't give in; aim for a new tomorrow.