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: 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.