Science sez: Y'all suck at science

[Elfer]

I came across this very good article about why a large amount of political conflict can exist over scientific issues where no scientific conflict exists. It also discusses the phenomena of non-scientists claiming to contest scientific consensus on scientific grounds so frequently in cases where the scientific conclusion is contrary to their cultural beliefs.

Basically, the idea they posit in the paper is that cultural perception of scientific consensus/conclusions are not factually based, but instead are based on our own opinions about the issues. They also claim that this largely determines our judgment of whether or not someone is a credible expert, independent of their credentials.

It's a pretty good read on cultural cognitive bias, I'd recommend taking a look regardless of which side of the fence you're normally on. There's a lot of multivariate analysis in the middle, but at least take a look at the conclusions.

Some highlights:

Despite the steady and massive accumulation of scientific evidence, the American
public is as divided about climate change today as it was 10 years ago (Newport 2008;
Pew Research Center 2009). Nor is this the only issue on which the emergence of
consensus, or near consensus, among scientists has failed to achieve anything close to
that among members of the public: the safety of nuclear power (Slovic, Flynn, and
Layman 1991; Barke and Jenkins-Smith 1993); the toxicity of arsenic, radon, and
other groundwater chemicals (Sunstein 2005); the health consequences of vaccinating
school girls against the human papillomavirus (Kahan et al., forthcoming) - all have
featured intense political contestation over empirical issues on which technical experts
largely agree.

Not all policy disputes turn on issues amenable to scientific investigation, of
course, so no one would or should expect that what scientists have to say will resolve
every conflict. But when empirical assessments of risk and risk abatement are
exactly what members of the public are fighting about, why is the prevailing opinion
of scientists - on questions only they are equipped to answer - so infrequently treated
as decisive?

---

...public debates rarely feature open resistance to science; the parties to such
disputes are much more likely to advance diametrically opposed claims about what the
scientific evidence really shows. The problem, it seems, is not that members of the
public are unexposed or indifferent to what scientists say, but rather that they disagree
about what scientists are telling them.

---

We hypothesized that scientific opinion fails to quiet societal dispute on such issues not because members of the public are unwilling to defer to experts but because culturally diverse persons tend to form opposing perceptions of what experts believe. Individuals systematically overestimate the degree of scientific support for positions they are culturally predisposed to accept as a result of a cultural availability effect that influences how readily they can recall instances of expert endorsement of those positions.

---

So, what say you? Do you think your view of scientific research is based in fact, or is it based on what you already believed before?

[RubberTrucky]

On this topic, I feel science should always have a strong voice in claiming facts. This is, of course, when the consensus amongst the majority of scientists is obtained. This isn't always that trivial, since scientists tend to contest one another, especially over relevant and societal issues.

But also keep in mind that in solving societal problems, there might be more angles to it then science. Ethics plays a big roll (for example, is animal testing really something to strive for, even if it is known that results are obtained faster) or economics (think about the global warming issue). So it's not so easy to say that scientists should be listened to solely because they are objective and study facts rather than opinions.
Aside from this, scientists should also know that what science says today might change over time into new theories. So one should make sure that solutions are open to changes if scientific conclusion do change.

[poxpower]

Is this news to anyone?
Really?

There's billions of people who still believe in God, miracles, aliens and so on.

[Musician]

I'll read the article later tonight, since it sounds interesting. But generally, the broad opposition to climate change can be traced back to misinformation. Most American's don't understand how the scientific community functions. They don't recognize how incredibly decentralized it is. They must believe it's some sort of highly centralized institution that can be hijacked in order to promote a political agenda, but it really can't.

I mean, somewhat similar things have happened in the past, with bad research making it into Journals, etc. But it's incredibly obvious when it's happening. An example would be the tobacco institute, and the "does smoking cause cancer?" fiasco of the 80's. Well, of course we know now that it does, as did anyone savvy back in the day. But there used to be "serious" debate. Is there really cancer causing agents inside of cigarrettes? Or is it simply a liberal big government conspiracy to take away our personal freedoms? Lets not be dogmatic here. We should give both sides of this debate equal amounts of confidence!

As for where the misinformation comes from. Mostly, it comes from the people who have the most to lose. Large oil companies, manufacturing industries, etc. They've lead a massive misinformation campaign to try and make the scientific community look more fragmented than it actually is.

I've always wondered why they do it. Why do these CEOs, and stockholders work so hard to prevent reform that may very prevent massive destabilization throughout the world? The ultimate answer I think is: they're shortsighted. They don't care whether or not the world gets destroyed 20 years from now, because they're focused on making higher profits at the end of the next fiscal year. This is a repeating theme throughout human history. Ignore the large problems for temporary gain. That's what the arms race with the Russians was all about for example.

In the end though, they may not be able to prevent reform. There are different elements of the American regime that are beginning to see global warming as a serious threat. Mainly up until now it's been America's high tech industries, but you're seeing the imperialists jump on board as well. Even the pentagon is releasing studies on Global Warming now. Predicting massive damage to "American interests" abroad, etc.

We'll see how this all ends.

[lapis]

At 11/2/10 03:23 PM, Musician wrote: I've always wondered why they do it. Why do these CEOs, and stockholders work so hard to prevent reform that may very prevent massive destabilization throughout the world? The ultimate answer I think is: they're shortsighted.

Well, those CEOs and stockholders probably won't feel the pain of Global Warming anyway. Poor people in India or Bangladesh will feel the pain. So even when you take the long term into account it's also good for them to keep making money on the short term.

Then again, I don't think these people really think something along the lines of "fuck the world, I need to make more money". I think they have a pre-existing will to believe one thing which makes them more likely to interpret scientific research in a way that supports their viewpoint or at least gives it the benefit of the doubt. Like what was described in the OP.

And just like us? lol

Picture: Climate Change Vulnerability Index 2011. Green is good, blue is bad.

[The-universe]

At 11/2/10 02:33 PM, poxpower wrote: Is this news to anyone?
Really?

There's billions of people who still believe in God, miracles, aliens and so on.

Even though I take the same stance on aliens as I do with god, I must ask, are you really comparing a plausible naturally occurring phenomena with the supernatural?

[poxpower]

At 11/2/10 05:10 PM, The-universe wrote:

Even though I take the same stance on aliens as I do with god, I must ask, are you really comparing a plausible naturally occurring phenomena with the supernatural?

The word "supernatural" is meaningless.
How can you be more than nature? It's like being outside the universe. Or outside of existence but still existing. If you're anywhere at all, you're inside the universe and you're part of the natural world. It's a false dichotomy created to give the impression that science shouldn't try to meddle in the affairs of religion and magic.

It's the same as that stupid "Science only answers how, not why." line. It doesn't mean anything.

[The-universe]

At 11/2/10 05:42 PM, poxpower wrote: It's the same as that stupid "Science only answers how, not why." line. It doesn't mean anything.

But that's not the question I asked. I wasn't even talking about the existence of the supernatural.

What I am asking is, are you equating aliens, something that is natural and can be observed if discovered, to the supernatural? Since you put them both in the same list.

[poxpower]

At 11/2/10 06:31 PM, The-universe wrote:

What I am asking is, are you equating aliens, something that is natural and can be observed if discovered, to the supernatural? Since you put them both in the same list.

I just told you "supernatural" doesn't mean anything.

And alien encounters definitely are in the same list as all the other bullshit.

[gumOnShoe]

I'm really no surprised, both because I have done wrong by this in the past and because I've observed others do it. I try to at least find studies before I make claims. Occasionally I discover my anecdotal studies I was relying on don't actually exist and then I walk back my conversation and usually apologize.

[Musician]

At 11/2/10 03:41 PM, lapis wrote: Well, those CEOs and stockholders probably won't feel the pain of Global Warming anyway. Poor people in India or Bangladesh will feel the pain. So even when you take the long term into account it's also good for them to keep making money on the short term.

Picture: Climate Change Vulnerability Index 2011. Green is good, blue is bad.

Well just look at that picture. Look at the countries in blue. First of all, I can see at least 3 nuclear powers that face massive economic destabilization from climate change. India and Pakistan are two of them. You can draw your own conclusions about the worst case scenario there. Second of all, most of the world's centers of production are at risk. Indo-China, Eastern Asia, and Africa. There have already been riots across the Western Coast of Africa due to the rising costs of food. What happens when an entire crops yields are lost?

The rich stand to lose their supply of slave labor, possibly their tangible assets in foreign countries if it sparks a new wave of nationalism, which all the evidence suggests it probably will. And if there's nuclear war? Well, I'm sure you know. That alone threatens the very survival of our species. Even the crooks on wall street can't buy their way out of an irradiated wasteland.

[Elfer]

At 11/2/10 05:10 PM, The-universe wrote:

At 11/2/10 02:33 PM, poxpower wrote: Is this news to anyone?
Really?

There's billions of people who still believe in God, miracles, aliens and so on.

Even though I take the same stance on aliens as I do with god, I must ask, are you really comparing a plausible naturally occurring phenomena with the supernatural?

I think he's equating aliens in contemporary conspiracy theory/"ufology" with the supernatural, not the possibility of extraterrestrial intelligence in general.

[The-universe]

At 11/2/10 07:22 PM, poxpower wrote: I just told you "supernatural" doesn't mean anything.

And alien encounters definitely are in the same list as all the other bullshit.

So are you referring to crop circles, alien abductions, UFO sighting/footprints/remains etc and not the scientific inquiry of seeing if alien life can exist by studying the most suitable places such as mars, europa, titan etc?

[lapis]

At 11/3/10 01:14 AM, Musician wrote: The rich stand to lose their supply of slave labor, possibly their tangible assets in foreign countries if it sparks a new wave of nationalism, which all the evidence suggests it probably will.

The governments that arise in such situations tend not to be big on labour unions that complain about workers getting paid 3 cents an hour (instead of 5). They might agitate against wall street in the local state-controlled media but in the end provide labour for their industries, directly or through intermediaries.

And if there's nuclear war?

Okay, I guess fallout in the US or a nuclear winter would not be beneficial for CEOs and stockholders but I'm sure you can also discredit the impact of those events using - shall we say - science. Assuming that a nuclear war actually comes about as a reuslt of increasing instability.

I guess, though, that I should have admitted that CEOs and stockholders are not guaranteed of long-term profits. But it's a cost-benefit analysis that might, from the perspective of the CEOs and stockholders, turn out in favour of the benefits even if the long-term is taken into account. For businessmen in Bangladesh or the Maldives, though, I think you really have to believe strongly in the falsity of Global Warming to think that stopping reform would be good for the distant future.

[unowned]

realize that policy makers can tell the difference between 'fact or fiction'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-bas ed_community

[poxpower]

At 11/3/10 04:00 PM, The-universe wrote:

So are you referring to crop circles, alien abductions, UFO sighting/footprints/remains etc and not the scientific inquiry of seeing if alien life can exist by studying the most suitable places such as mars, europa, titan etc?

People who claim aliens have visited the earth.
Not SETI or the Mars rovers.

[unowned]

do why does the government waste its time infiltrating and undermining them
http://www.americanchronicle.com/article s/view/61734

'for your safety and ours'

[stephenharper]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-bas ed_community

oh and note that they refer it as http://www.thefreedictionary.com/discern ible reality

compared to the manufactured consent citizens who think what they want is what they truly want, or that is was entirely their decision. not knowing that they are programmed biocomputers who like to communicate in cliche linear way of thinking whilst going 'this is reality'

[Musician]

lapis, I appreciate your input. It is excellent as usual

[Der-Lowe]

Being an Economics student, this does not surprise me at all. You could add the effects of fiscal policy to the list of "issue[s] on which the emergence of consensus, or near consensus, among scientists has failed to achieve anything close to that among members of the public" and even add Chicago economists to the "non-scientist" list.

Cochrane makes me sad :( I wanted to get my Phd there but after he showed he does not understand Ricardian Equivalence I don't wanna have anything to do with that University.

[Gario]

At 11/2/10 02:33 PM, poxpower wrote: Is this news to anyone?
Really?

There's billions of people who still believe in God, miracles, aliens and so on.

Statistically speaking, it's more than likely that the person who wrote the article does, too. The irony is astounding, isn't it?

It's one of those articles that isn't really 'news', but it does bring the fact to light. I'm interested in exactly what samples they used to get their conclusion and what their hypothesis is to explain it.