This comment is not satire, I'm being brutally honest: I don't believe everything for the right reasons.
I believe in global warming, but not because of research papers or books I've read on climate change. I've clicked on research papers but I often find the scientific terminology and information in them overwhelming. I think, "It looks like they know what they're talking about." Sometimes I don't even click. I look around at people commenting on it, and if an articulate person makes a case one way or another, it influences my beliefs.
I know this is wrong but frankly it would be impossible to be educated enough on all these matters to justify having an opinion. Imagine if everyone who felt strongly about global warming had read and understood at least one research paper on it. That would mean half my friends, family, and coworkers have read and understood a research paper. I'll take the under...
What makes matters worse is being around people socially who have strong opinions. Not having one can make you look boring or dimwitted. If the conversation wanders into an area in which you do have an opinion--based on facts and research--citing those facts can feel like reading off box score statistics at a Yankees-Red Sox game. No one gets excited!
That makes me cynical. I think, people just want to feel strongly about something, kind of like they want to have a baseball team. It binds them together. I guess that's fine, I just wish we treated it more like sports and less like religion.
Verify yourself that a few people seem both well-informed and unbiased, using your personal experience or research. Put a decent amount of trust in them.
When a person you trust appears to have high regard for another person's opinion, add some trust to that other person.
When you notice someone says dumb or biased stuff, reduce your trust in them by a lot.
Continue like that for years, mixing some independent verification here and there, and you'll have some idea of what's going on.
If you wanted to talk about core CS ideas, would you just ask anyone? If you knew you were making progress on an academic discourse, would you think to talk about your readings with just anyone?
As soon as you want to make deep progress on anything you need to talk with people who match you on preparation and energy. This is true even on HN and core CS topics.
> I don't believe everything for the right reasons
I can't imagine how it would be any other way. Only on the internet can people be experts on everything. The rest of us just kind of wing it and hope for the best.
When I dont know about something and someone has a strong opinion, I asked to be explained to. Then I ask critical questions designed to undercut their arguments until I am satisfied. This is a way to ckme across as intelligent without having to know about everything.
On something like global warming, I find it easy to trust the Scientific Method, rather than individual papers or individual scientists (or worse, the media translation thereof). The core counter-explanation to the scientific consensus is "Scientists are greedy liars in a giant conspiracy to get rich on research grants", which I find, um, problematic. And, while the phrasing may get prettier, that's what most of these arguments lead to, what most of the people who reject global warming believe.
In a related manner, I tend to judge ideas by who agrees with them. Be careful who you're standing with, they can tell you a lot about the validity of where you're standing. (Or, as a friend put it about politics, "If the racists think the candidate is a racist, the candidate is probably a racist".)
So, for something like global warming, if you're standing with people who believe in and work within the scientific method, you're probably good (assuming you believe in science), and if you're standing with people who believe the world was created in seven days 5500 years ago and corporations whose core business model is to put greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere... well.
Resist the urge to comment here with stories of the time everyone around you was illogical and inconsistent, and you were the sole voice of reason (or so you think). Much more interesting to think of the times when you were illogical and inconsistent, because it's a lot harder to spot in yourself.
Something I say a lot, especially at work, is "I could be wrong. I'm often wrong." I think it's very, very important to constantly remind yourself that you're not always right, and you're (hopefully) not the smartest person in the room. (Another rule of thumb - if you're the smartest person in the room, you need to find a better room!)
This also makes me think of the book Factfulness, by Hans Rosling. Best book I've read in years. In it, he details thought patterns common to all of us that mislead us and cause us to misunderstand or ignore even basic facts. He's not talking about "dumb people". He's talking about smart people, and how utterly wrong they are most of the time. It'll fundamentally change how you look at your own way of thinking.
> Much more interesting to think of the times when you were illogical and inconsistent, because it's a lot harder to spot in yourself.
Agreed. This is something I think about a lot. I like consistency and am always trying to reconcile my personal beliefs with each other. It can be quite hard because it leads to questioning other beliefs that may be deeply held. The classic example is logic/reasoning and religion.
A simpler example that I recently went through was that I stopped drinking alcohol. I never had a problem with alcohol and would have beer or wine here and there. But, the evidence keeps mounting that it's literally just putting poison in your body with little benefits. I felt it was inconsistent for me to workout everyday, eat healthy, and then drink alcohol. So I stopped rationalizing and quit.
I dislike this study. It naively picks out a few conservative views to lampoon as examples of irrationality (I say this as a liberal), and then hopes to generalize this as "controversial topics"
This is too narrow. We shouldn't pretend that human beliefs are predominantly logical with a few strange exceptions. By and large we know incredibly little, most of what we "know" is because authorities have told us about it (e.g. I've never seen Africa with my own eyes), and most of what we believe isn't scientifically meaningful (i.e. justice/goodness being social constructs).
For the purposes of attempting to understand why people continue to believe in things when there is much scientific evidence to the contrary, I felt the list they chose was very representative of relevant topics that fit this criteria. If you were to attempt to balance what you see as bias in this study, what are some specific examples that you feel would improve it?
> I dislike this study. It naively picks out a few conservative views to lampoon as examples of irrationality (I say this as a liberal), and then hopes to generalize this as "controversial topics"
I strong object to this. Having been deeply involved both with this topic, skeptical advocacy, and having been raised deeply conservative: "GMO foods" is not a conservative anti-science issue. It's deeply "liberal", and generally stems from an inability to separate unethical corporate work and interests with the outcomes of technology. Similarly, many anti-vaccination misinformation peddlers are squarely aligned with what constitutes the "left" in American popular culture.
> This is too narrow. We shouldn't pretend that human beliefs are predominantly logical with a few strange exceptions.
Again, I think you're reading into both the study and the article. This is more a study of how people rationalize their beliefs and in some cases, political affiliations inform that. It's an important topic.
> By and large we know incredibly little, most of what we "know" is because authorities have told us about it
Science, of course, neither creates reality nor truly measures it. It can only measure our observations, and we can seek to make our observations ever more reflective of reality. The entire point of that process is for us to convince one another and survive each other's reasonable objections.
Understanding how people work themselves up to reject such a consensus-driven process, and how the mental techniques they use may be addressed. The stakes are quite high.
I don't think they are saying that we are predominantly logical with a few exceptions around controversial topics...
I think they are saying something much, much deeper and maybe this is just my confirmation bias kicking in here but it really supports my observations on a position I've held for a couple of years now.
I think what they are alluding to is that we are not logical and not rational in how we choose all of our beliefs as we do not try to seek out what is true (except for one edge case), instead we try to seek consensus within some political sphere (a group of any kind).
The so called controversial topics are where it's easiest to spot and easiest to study. But there is a stunningly deep implication that just because there is an uncontroversial consensus around something it doesn't mean the conclusion was arrived at by a sound process. So you actually really have to question everything.
For a while now I've been saying people don't argue for what is true, they argue for political affiliation.
It's close to impossible for humans to tell what's true. Often it would take trillions of dollars, millions of people or thousands of years to actually verify something as being the case. We take 99.99% of our existence on faith because it's simply not possible for us to fact check it. And if it's not possible for us to fact check what is true except for in the most basic of cases why would it ever be important to us as a social behavior? So that's why we see what this article points out. At least in my view.
We do do some degree of fact checking but it's usually the minimum viable fact checking to coordinate with our peers.
The interesting edge case they point out where some people do reason consistently is also signaling political affiliation. They are attempting to signal "I'm on team evidence-based". But the interesting thing about team "evidence-based" is they tend not to question or be skeptical so much of the fraud and other social phenomenon (replication crisis etc) present in science. They take it on faith that "this is the best answer I have whether it is true or not, but it's most likely true therefore it's true". Even team evidence-based isn't purely rational. And for good reason. They can't be. It's simply not viable to personally try to reproduce every study you read.
We are political animals that care about our survival and forming consensus. Not truth.
I lolled at the qualification of the conspiratorial bent arguments as fallacious. They clearly are not. Conspiracies happen and can take a long time to unwind. They should not make up the bulk of your argument and should not fuel a position without doubt, but they are not fallacious. Scientist make mistakes, take unwarranted positions and take bribes all the time. (I mean this across all fields not as any kind of direct accusation.) Some scepsis with any consensus is just smart logic.
Right. The article calls these things "fallacies", but that only strictly means that they're not slam-dunk arguments. Logical fallacies aren't necessarily bad heuristics, they just don't necessarily assure strict logical implication.
(Often they are actually decent Bayesian "evidence", though I don't want to make that argument for the cases in TFA.)
I agree, and more so, it's something that most people feel more confident in assessing.
Put yourself in the position of someone that genuinely doesn't trust themselves to assess scientific evidence. One scientist article says one thing one week another the next, and they all feel vaguely related and unrelated.
If you can't trust yourself to weigh and understand the evidence yourself you instead look to the institutional pressures you think you understand.
In all the topics there is a well-constructed 'Them'
* GMOs: the FDA is largely controlled by the agriculture industry themselves, across parties and administrations. It's not irrational to fear that the FDA is not adequately regulating food.
* Vaccines: similar fears about the pharmaceutical industry are valid.
Both those industries have paid scientists, government regulators, and news organizations to spin data for their benefit and to avoid justice of different kinds.
*Global warming: the same people that seem to be overly concerned about cute owls and monkeys are "the liberals" which control the universities/research. Sure smog is bad, but (as one Denver taxi driver said to me once) "it smells like money." Sure they mean well, but they are likely to blow the issues out of proportion.
That's a system someone thinks they understand while who knows what an ice core really means.
TFA indicated that avoiding indicating identity/allegiance might help, but I'd like to see that study actually done.
Sometimes there are conspiracies. But they are rare compared to simple incompetence. My objection to most conspiracy theories is that they skip over the null hypothesis, namely that one or more fallible humans screwed up.
Well, remember, if the mainstream media isn't reporting on a particular conspiracy theory, that's evidence that it IS happening. Otherwise why would they be afraid to report it?
Not to mention that for two of the topics mentioned (vaccines and GMO foods), and notably the topic for which a quote of so-called "conspiratorial argument" was provided in the article, there's not just the issue of the scientific consensus but also of how the corresponding technology is applied in the real world.
The highlighted argument about profit-seeking by companies is clearly a valid concern when it comes to how technologies are actually applied. It's why we have regulation and independent oversight bodies. (It's also unfair and misleading to call it a conspiratorial argument in the first place -- it's simply pointing out that an actor has financial interests and may therefore be biased, there's no conspiracy involved.)
Maybe you'd want survey respondents to perfectly separate the concerns of applications vs. scientific consensus, but to be honest I think that's an unfair expectation.
> 45 per cent of participants explicitly denied, at least once, that anything could change their mind on a particular topic
This is the most troubling data from the study for me. It's natural that people will hold opinions for which they don't have evidence, since we can't be experts on everything (e.g. "I trust my friend, who thinks that"), but the fact that half the population hold opinions that they would not change, given any amount of evidence, is actually somewhat terrifying.
At a very young age (I think teenage years), I learned to ask this question whenever I'm in an endless argument:
>What information will make you change your mind?
In reality, you'll either get something ridiculously hard to show, or you'll get "Nothing!" I used to think it was a good way to realize you're wasting your time in the argument.
Over the years, my view has become nuanced. Those people who say "Nothing" or something outrageous are merely saying it because they themselves don't know in the moment what it will take. In practice, people do change their minds. So I wouldn't read too much into that 45% figure - it's more of a sign they didn't have an answer when they were asked.
Now in reality, social influences usually trigger a change much more than factual reasoning. If someone is adamant about a position and won't listen to you, but then he finds that a close friend he views as having similar values shares your perspective, he is much more likely to start looking at the facts. He is also much more likely to listen to that person than you.
I strongly recommend the books Influence by Cialdini as well as various negotiation books. The first gives the science. The latter puts them into practice.
The biggest mistake pro-science people make is in declaring others' opinions as wrong, and then follow it up with all the objective evidence they have to support their position that it is wrong. In the other person, this triggers a deep human sentiment "This other person does not care about my opinion". You get much further by listening and understanding the other person's perspective, and then signalling that you understand. Once there, present your facts, but not forcefully. End it with "Based on this data, my opinion is ..." Focus on why you believe what you do without explicitly invalidating the other person's perspective (no matter how insane).
I can't find the exact quote, but something Scott Adams (the creator of Dilbert) wrote once always stuck with me: "I've never seen anybody change their behavior due to a well-reasoned argument. I have seen people change their behavior to avoid ridicule."
It's perhaps useful to look at the positions of scientists themselves. First, there's not a clear boundary between scientific and non-scientific inquiry. Isaac Newton spent a considerable amount of time investigating alchemy among other subjects. He also held views well outside the mainstream on religion. [0]
Second, scientists can be just as obstinate as anyone. There is abundant evidence of scientists failing to modify their views in response to new ideas and data. Plate tectonics comes lightly to mind--many of those who opposed it never changed their minds. It prevailed in part because the opposition retired or died. [1]
If scientists themselves can be so resistant to rational inquiry, why do we uphold this as an ideal for ordinary citizens?
It's an ego thing. Being wrong is hard. I have found it can be even harder for 'smart' people to be wrong because so much of their self worth is built around being smart and thus right much of the time.
I think that what the people who indicate this really mean is that they refuse to change their minds as long as a decent portion of the population also refuses to change their viewpoint as well. Because then it is still validated to a certain degree. Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, had a great blog post about this topic. His post was on the issue of global warming and he said basically that his position on global warming is that since he doesn't know enough about the science to say with any level of certainty himself whether the claims of global warming are true and there is a social/political cost in terms of credibility/image for saying you don't believe it, then he will always say he is a believer and agrees with the mainstream opinion, regardless of what he actually thinks or if he simply doesn't know where he stands. If 99% of the world came to agree on the topic of global warming, I doubt most of these people who claim they will never change their mind would still hold the same belief. For example, are there still flat-Earthers? Yes, but they are a rounding error to 0 at this point.
While I'm easily in agreement on three of those four topics, I still get stuck on GMO. I've heard many times that the scientific consensus is that GMO foods are safe, but so far I can't understand why that statement can be made with so broad a brush. There are certain GMO foods that I have no problem with because I've looked into them a little more, but my impression of GMO is that the manner of genetic modification is essentially limitless, and it probably depends on the food, and the environment on where it's grown, etc. I mean they're literally saying, "Yup, we changed it" - shouldn't the question be changed it how? So since I can't hope to understand the complete enumeration of GMO ingredients in a package of storebought food, and which ones might be contributing to some sort of long term systemic imbalance in the food supply... I'm one that is prone to agreeing with GMO labels on food so I can buy the ones that aren't if I want. I'd like to think that I'm open to finding out what I might be misunderstanding here, but usually when I find discussions online about it, it tends to be either too vitriolic or so scientific I can't understand it and suspect there's some perspective being lost.
The scientists saying GMOs are safe mean they are safe like refrigerators are safe. You can certainly create an unsafe refrigerator. Maybe it has a faulty ground wire and runs voltage through the handle. Maybe it is unbalanced and will topple over on you. That fridge would be dangerous, but fridges are not dangerous as a category.
That could be contrasted with products made of arsenic. Those are quite dangerous as a category because arsenic is poisonous.
Organic matter is composed of molecular compounds. Things like oxygen, glucose, cellulose, etc. When scientists at Monsanto change the genome of an organism, they do it so that it grows larger, or is resistant to a weedkiller, or resistant to a virus. When these GMO plants are then harvested, they can be tested for any toxic compounds such as formaldehyde or arsenic. Since there is no evidence of toxic compounds above what you might find in ordinary food, you can conclude that GMOs are safe. It is impossible that there "could" be something in there that is toxic, or something we don't know about, because we know exactly what compounds are in the plant and we know that those compounds are not dangerous.
People are not stupid and issues in question are hard.
Pretending you are an expert and know actual justification, evidence and logic behind all the geology, genetics, thermodynamics and so and so to have informed opinion about all of these topics is wrong.
People are right about their own beliefs. Their beliefs are not based on evidence, but cultural.
They could research one topic and report knowing it because of evidence (they researched it)
How do people trust experts? That's a fundamental problem.
Additionally, there are non-scientific issues confused with "belief" in science. Does agreeing with the scientific consensus on GMOs entail a belief that corporations can be trusted to implement the science? That scientists, politicians and regulators haven't been bribed or coerced? That scientific and political systems in other countries can be judged by the scientific experts? Trusting in a practical use of GMOs is not the same as believing in the scientific consensus.
Another example:
> The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000.
>However, 20 per cent of justifications were subjective and involved making a reference to one’s cultural identity, personal experience or fallacious reasoning.
Well, another reading of this is that "objective criteria" aren't everything.
Even if it's "scientifically objectively" better to do X, it doesn't mean it's what a person wants to do (or should do).
There's better as in "more efficient" (which is measurable and objective) and better as a value judgement.
"This fits better with my moral code, culture, food taste, preferences, etc." is a perfectly valid justification.
This is intuitive. People aren't consistent, why should we expect their reasoning to be? Especially when the main determinant for most peoples' views on controversial topics, in the USA at least, is their political party affiliation. Why is it that having a D or R in front of a politician's name can correctly predict around 80-90% of their viewpoints? It's a clustering effect, people select D or R, and then cobble together reasoning as best they can to defend their felt views.
Perfectly evidenced by the use of science, for instance. You have something like a pro-life movement, which co-opts scientific "facts" to support their view of fetuses being humans. But then these same GOP voters ignore scientific "facts" when it comes to climate change. This is due to the Republican politicians, who cluster all of their supporter's views to match their own. It's the same on the Democratic side - look at anti-GMO protesters who are ignorant of the scientifically proven benefits of GMO's, yet who point to 98% of scientists reaching consensus on climate change.
Political party is stronger than reasoning or consistency.
Because political questions don't have scientific solutions.
Pro-life supporters aren't co-opting science when they claim a fetus is a human being, they are undermining a possible objection: obviously everyone recognizes that killing a 1 year old is not ok, regardless how the mother feels about it, so why is it ok to kill a fetus? What's the relevant distinction between the two cases?
In a former time people didn't have a good understanding of human development, so you might claim the fetus wasn't really human until it was born. Scientifically that doesn't hold up.
But you might still be ok with abortion on other grounds. Perhaps a rationale based on capabilities or intelligence, etc.
You can levy science to support a premise in an argument, but science can't decide the policy. That comes down to values, trade-offs, philosophy and ideology.
Climate change is a great example. What everyone talks about is a belief in a one sentence description of an idea. But the actual detailed contours of that belief, and the scientific arguments that led to its conclusion... who has those?
Climate isn't exactly easy to understand, even for an expert, and people have other priorities about things they care about.
For a Republican its mostly going to come down to trust in government, and its that ideology which drives the conclusion.
Anyway I don't think scientific shibboleths are all that valuable. I'd much rather people actually understand this stuff, but the truth is its asking too much. People live busy lives and not everyone can be a scientist.
Know that feeling when you learn a new word and then you see it everywhere?
Well, that's a bit how I feel now that I am reading The Knowledge Illusion: Why We Never Think Alone, by Philip Fernbach and Steven A. Sloman. It's a book around the topic of this post. Might be of interest to whoever finds this topic appealing.
The world is fundamentally a pretty nice, easy-going place. (Cf. Bucky Fuller) Ergo, bad reasoning is the only factor keeping us from entering a kind of Golden Age.
(FWIW, the rational belief to hold about GMOs is that they are a dangerous unproven experiment, and that's it's wildly irresponsible to apply genetic engineering willy-nilly without centuries of research. So... YMMV.)
The scientific consensus once was that there was nothing more elementary than protons and neutrons. Also that light traveled through ether... To fault someone for being skeptical of scientific consensus seems to be ignorant of humanity’s history of ignorance.
Obviously science is an essential tool for human progress but it is not a finder of objective truths.
I have been working hard on debunking belief-systems that are in science itself and in its communities.
A lot of science is based on procedures and theories that automatically create certain results. As long people do not see this, it makes no sense comparing one belief-system versus another.
Since scientific consensus has replaced religion for many people, we're long overdue for Luthers and Calvins to question it (and I say this as a Catholic). It's intuitive that "the word of God" can and historically has been perverted by human beings who have been corrupted by power, it should follow that the same is true for "settled science." Even if you're not religious, historical religion is an excellent demonstration of the fallibility of man, why would scientific consensus be any different?
IMO, there are three bases for dis/belief in a theory: 1) the supporting evidence is compelling, 2) the counter evidence is not, and 3) the alternative theories are not. The authors (seem to) mention only basis 1, but not 2 or 3. But it's the interplay among all three that must tip the scale if the thought process is truly scientific.
However I doubt any non-scientist could enumerate serious counter theories to the scientific status quo for evolution, GMOs, vaccines, or climate change -- other than citing probability and the burden of proof as insufficient for their adoption.
Personally I know little evidence that GMOs are toxic, so I side with non-toxic. Same for vaccines (now that Wakefield is wholly discredited). Same for counter-theories to evolution, though that's such a big topic, it'd be silly to endorse all or none of it, especially at the fringes. Evolution's chief strengths are its longevity and that there's no viable alternative theory for speciation. The existence of global warming AND man as its cause also suffers from a lack of viable alternative explanations. But is this scientific thinking, or just pragmatism? I disbelieve unless you can convince me otherwise. That's just common sense.
The OP doesn't seem to address "burden of proof" in judging scientific theories, except to combine the three bases under "justification". But I think the distinction between the three is essential, as is their visible presence, in a rational mind, since science-based belief must reflect the sum of thought that assesses evidence for, against, AND vs. alternative theories.
Ignoring any of these three puts one on the road to faith.
That's a contradiction in terms. Science is not democratic; wide agreement doesn't matter. A single rogue experiment or even observation can upend an entire way of understanding the world.
Compare the following two statements:
"We consulted with the scientific community. Sound science shows that vaccines save many lives, not just the ones being vaccinated. Decades of history have not turned up any significant risks. Therefore, we recommend local schools give vaccines to nearly all students. We've set up a fund to help administer this for schools that need it, and resources for homeschooled children."
Versus:
"Our favorite professors determined that vaccines are good, so we're going to inject every kid in the country, including yours. There's nothing you can do about it because you are not a Ph.D.".
With phrases like "scientific consensus", people hear more of the latter and less of the former. Especially since the phrase is used to essentially sign a blank check, where the original claim can be stretched far into the political realm by whoever is speaking.
There's plenty of evidence that science and scientists are easily corruptible and high profile 'results' like "mmmmm GMO corn" are a lie. Example from my own career: some ridiculous smart grid technology which claimed people would turn their air conditioners off when it is hot out because "muh free markets" peak load pricing changes. I actually had access to the original data which pushed forward this ridiculous multi-billion dollar boondoggle and checked the assertions: the PIs overtly lied.
Anytime you hear the word "scientific consensus" used to brow beat people, you should run. Science is not about consensus. Plenty of scientists challenge the consensus view and end up being correct. It's still happening to today.
We should not be urging the point that "good scientists" are the one who don't question the consensus view.
I can give a good current example: Alzheimer's. Were now seeing the failure of the Amaloid Beta model in all clinical trails and preliminary evidence is starting to point to a herpes virus link.
[+] [-] jimmytucson|7 years ago|reply
I believe in global warming, but not because of research papers or books I've read on climate change. I've clicked on research papers but I often find the scientific terminology and information in them overwhelming. I think, "It looks like they know what they're talking about." Sometimes I don't even click. I look around at people commenting on it, and if an articulate person makes a case one way or another, it influences my beliefs.
I know this is wrong but frankly it would be impossible to be educated enough on all these matters to justify having an opinion. Imagine if everyone who felt strongly about global warming had read and understood at least one research paper on it. That would mean half my friends, family, and coworkers have read and understood a research paper. I'll take the under...
What makes matters worse is being around people socially who have strong opinions. Not having one can make you look boring or dimwitted. If the conversation wanders into an area in which you do have an opinion--based on facts and research--citing those facts can feel like reading off box score statistics at a Yankees-Red Sox game. No one gets excited!
That makes me cynical. I think, people just want to feel strongly about something, kind of like they want to have a baseball team. It binds them together. I guess that's fine, I just wish we treated it more like sports and less like religion.
[+] [-] _cs2017_|7 years ago|reply
Verify yourself that a few people seem both well-informed and unbiased, using your personal experience or research. Put a decent amount of trust in them.
When a person you trust appears to have high regard for another person's opinion, add some trust to that other person.
When you notice someone says dumb or biased stuff, reduce your trust in them by a lot.
Continue like that for years, mixing some independent verification here and there, and you'll have some idea of what's going on.
[+] [-] threatofrain|7 years ago|reply
As soon as you want to make deep progress on anything you need to talk with people who match you on preparation and energy. This is true even on HN and core CS topics.
[+] [-] anitil|7 years ago|reply
I can't imagine how it would be any other way. Only on the internet can people be experts on everything. The rest of us just kind of wing it and hope for the best.
[+] [-] tathougies|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] beat|7 years ago|reply
In a related manner, I tend to judge ideas by who agrees with them. Be careful who you're standing with, they can tell you a lot about the validity of where you're standing. (Or, as a friend put it about politics, "If the racists think the candidate is a racist, the candidate is probably a racist".)
So, for something like global warming, if you're standing with people who believe in and work within the scientific method, you're probably good (assuming you believe in science), and if you're standing with people who believe the world was created in seven days 5500 years ago and corporations whose core business model is to put greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere... well.
[+] [-] untog|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] beat|7 years ago|reply
This also makes me think of the book Factfulness, by Hans Rosling. Best book I've read in years. In it, he details thought patterns common to all of us that mislead us and cause us to misunderstand or ignore even basic facts. He's not talking about "dumb people". He's talking about smart people, and how utterly wrong they are most of the time. It'll fundamentally change how you look at your own way of thinking.
[+] [-] matwood|7 years ago|reply
Agreed. This is something I think about a lot. I like consistency and am always trying to reconcile my personal beliefs with each other. It can be quite hard because it leads to questioning other beliefs that may be deeply held. The classic example is logic/reasoning and religion.
A simpler example that I recently went through was that I stopped drinking alcohol. I never had a problem with alcohol and would have beer or wine here and there. But, the evidence keeps mounting that it's literally just putting poison in your body with little benefits. I felt it was inconsistent for me to workout everyday, eat healthy, and then drink alcohol. So I stopped rationalizing and quit.
[+] [-] alexandercrohde|7 years ago|reply
This is too narrow. We shouldn't pretend that human beliefs are predominantly logical with a few strange exceptions. By and large we know incredibly little, most of what we "know" is because authorities have told us about it (e.g. I've never seen Africa with my own eyes), and most of what we believe isn't scientifically meaningful (i.e. justice/goodness being social constructs).
[+] [-] Buldak|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] glitcher|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] KirinDave|7 years ago|reply
I strong object to this. Having been deeply involved both with this topic, skeptical advocacy, and having been raised deeply conservative: "GMO foods" is not a conservative anti-science issue. It's deeply "liberal", and generally stems from an inability to separate unethical corporate work and interests with the outcomes of technology. Similarly, many anti-vaccination misinformation peddlers are squarely aligned with what constitutes the "left" in American popular culture.
> This is too narrow. We shouldn't pretend that human beliefs are predominantly logical with a few strange exceptions.
Again, I think you're reading into both the study and the article. This is more a study of how people rationalize their beliefs and in some cases, political affiliations inform that. It's an important topic.
> By and large we know incredibly little, most of what we "know" is because authorities have told us about it
Science, of course, neither creates reality nor truly measures it. It can only measure our observations, and we can seek to make our observations ever more reflective of reality. The entire point of that process is for us to convince one another and survive each other's reasonable objections.
Understanding how people work themselves up to reject such a consensus-driven process, and how the mental techniques they use may be addressed. The stakes are quite high.
[+] [-] james_s_tayler|7 years ago|reply
I think they are saying something much, much deeper and maybe this is just my confirmation bias kicking in here but it really supports my observations on a position I've held for a couple of years now.
I think what they are alluding to is that we are not logical and not rational in how we choose all of our beliefs as we do not try to seek out what is true (except for one edge case), instead we try to seek consensus within some political sphere (a group of any kind).
The so called controversial topics are where it's easiest to spot and easiest to study. But there is a stunningly deep implication that just because there is an uncontroversial consensus around something it doesn't mean the conclusion was arrived at by a sound process. So you actually really have to question everything.
For a while now I've been saying people don't argue for what is true, they argue for political affiliation.
It's close to impossible for humans to tell what's true. Often it would take trillions of dollars, millions of people or thousands of years to actually verify something as being the case. We take 99.99% of our existence on faith because it's simply not possible for us to fact check it. And if it's not possible for us to fact check what is true except for in the most basic of cases why would it ever be important to us as a social behavior? So that's why we see what this article points out. At least in my view.
We do do some degree of fact checking but it's usually the minimum viable fact checking to coordinate with our peers.
The interesting edge case they point out where some people do reason consistently is also signaling political affiliation. They are attempting to signal "I'm on team evidence-based". But the interesting thing about team "evidence-based" is they tend not to question or be skeptical so much of the fraud and other social phenomenon (replication crisis etc) present in science. They take it on faith that "this is the best answer I have whether it is true or not, but it's most likely true therefore it's true". Even team evidence-based isn't purely rational. And for good reason. They can't be. It's simply not viable to personally try to reproduce every study you read.
We are political animals that care about our survival and forming consensus. Not truth.
[+] [-] wjnc|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] repsilat|7 years ago|reply
(Often they are actually decent Bayesian "evidence", though I don't want to make that argument for the cases in TFA.)
[+] [-] nabla9|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] schuyler2d|7 years ago|reply
Put yourself in the position of someone that genuinely doesn't trust themselves to assess scientific evidence. One scientist article says one thing one week another the next, and they all feel vaguely related and unrelated.
If you can't trust yourself to weigh and understand the evidence yourself you instead look to the institutional pressures you think you understand.
In all the topics there is a well-constructed 'Them' * GMOs: the FDA is largely controlled by the agriculture industry themselves, across parties and administrations. It's not irrational to fear that the FDA is not adequately regulating food. * Vaccines: similar fears about the pharmaceutical industry are valid.
Both those industries have paid scientists, government regulators, and news organizations to spin data for their benefit and to avoid justice of different kinds.
*Global warming: the same people that seem to be overly concerned about cute owls and monkeys are "the liberals" which control the universities/research. Sure smog is bad, but (as one Denver taxi driver said to me once) "it smells like money." Sure they mean well, but they are likely to blow the issues out of proportion.
That's a system someone thinks they understand while who knows what an ice core really means.
TFA indicated that avoiding indicating identity/allegiance might help, but I'd like to see that study actually done.
[+] [-] hodgesrm|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] commandlinefan|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] atq2119|7 years ago|reply
The highlighted argument about profit-seeking by companies is clearly a valid concern when it comes to how technologies are actually applied. It's why we have regulation and independent oversight bodies. (It's also unfair and misleading to call it a conspiratorial argument in the first place -- it's simply pointing out that an actor has financial interests and may therefore be biased, there's no conspiracy involved.)
Maybe you'd want survey respondents to perfectly separate the concerns of applications vs. scientific consensus, but to be honest I think that's an unfair expectation.
[+] [-] Wehrdo|7 years ago|reply
This is the most troubling data from the study for me. It's natural that people will hold opinions for which they don't have evidence, since we can't be experts on everything (e.g. "I trust my friend, who thinks that"), but the fact that half the population hold opinions that they would not change, given any amount of evidence, is actually somewhat terrifying.
[+] [-] BeetleB|7 years ago|reply
>What information will make you change your mind?
In reality, you'll either get something ridiculously hard to show, or you'll get "Nothing!" I used to think it was a good way to realize you're wasting your time in the argument.
Over the years, my view has become nuanced. Those people who say "Nothing" or something outrageous are merely saying it because they themselves don't know in the moment what it will take. In practice, people do change their minds. So I wouldn't read too much into that 45% figure - it's more of a sign they didn't have an answer when they were asked.
Now in reality, social influences usually trigger a change much more than factual reasoning. If someone is adamant about a position and won't listen to you, but then he finds that a close friend he views as having similar values shares your perspective, he is much more likely to start looking at the facts. He is also much more likely to listen to that person than you.
I strongly recommend the books Influence by Cialdini as well as various negotiation books. The first gives the science. The latter puts them into practice.
The biggest mistake pro-science people make is in declaring others' opinions as wrong, and then follow it up with all the objective evidence they have to support their position that it is wrong. In the other person, this triggers a deep human sentiment "This other person does not care about my opinion". You get much further by listening and understanding the other person's perspective, and then signalling that you understand. Once there, present your facts, but not forcefully. End it with "Based on this data, my opinion is ..." Focus on why you believe what you do without explicitly invalidating the other person's perspective (no matter how insane).
[+] [-] commandlinefan|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hodgesrm|7 years ago|reply
Second, scientists can be just as obstinate as anyone. There is abundant evidence of scientists failing to modify their views in response to new ideas and data. Plate tectonics comes lightly to mind--many of those who opposed it never changed their minds. It prevailed in part because the opposition retired or died. [1]
If scientists themselves can be so resistant to rational inquiry, why do we uphold this as an ideal for ordinary citizens?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton
[1] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/when-continent...
[+] [-] tom_|7 years ago|reply
What would change your mind on this?
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] matwood|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] turc1656|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tunesmith|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] slavik81|7 years ago|reply
That could be contrasted with products made of arsenic. Those are quite dangerous as a category because arsenic is poisonous.
[+] [-] Invictus0|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hamilyon2|7 years ago|reply
People are right about their own beliefs. Their beliefs are not based on evidence, but cultural.
They could research one topic and report knowing it because of evidence (they researched it)
[+] [-] irq-1|7 years ago|reply
Additionally, there are non-scientific issues confused with "belief" in science. Does agreeing with the scientific consensus on GMOs entail a belief that corporations can be trusted to implement the science? That scientists, politicians and regulators haven't been bribed or coerced? That scientific and political systems in other countries can be judged by the scientific experts? Trusting in a practical use of GMOs is not the same as believing in the scientific consensus.
Another example:
> The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fbi-overstated-fo...
[+] [-] coldtea|7 years ago|reply
Well, another reading of this is that "objective criteria" aren't everything.
Even if it's "scientifically objectively" better to do X, it doesn't mean it's what a person wants to do (or should do).
There's better as in "more efficient" (which is measurable and objective) and better as a value judgement.
"This fits better with my moral code, culture, food taste, preferences, etc." is a perfectly valid justification.
[+] [-] WhompingWindows|7 years ago|reply
Perfectly evidenced by the use of science, for instance. You have something like a pro-life movement, which co-opts scientific "facts" to support their view of fetuses being humans. But then these same GOP voters ignore scientific "facts" when it comes to climate change. This is due to the Republican politicians, who cluster all of their supporter's views to match their own. It's the same on the Democratic side - look at anti-GMO protesters who are ignorant of the scientifically proven benefits of GMO's, yet who point to 98% of scientists reaching consensus on climate change.
Political party is stronger than reasoning or consistency.
[+] [-] cdoxsey|7 years ago|reply
Pro-life supporters aren't co-opting science when they claim a fetus is a human being, they are undermining a possible objection: obviously everyone recognizes that killing a 1 year old is not ok, regardless how the mother feels about it, so why is it ok to kill a fetus? What's the relevant distinction between the two cases?
In a former time people didn't have a good understanding of human development, so you might claim the fetus wasn't really human until it was born. Scientifically that doesn't hold up.
But you might still be ok with abortion on other grounds. Perhaps a rationale based on capabilities or intelligence, etc.
You can levy science to support a premise in an argument, but science can't decide the policy. That comes down to values, trade-offs, philosophy and ideology.
Climate change is a great example. What everyone talks about is a belief in a one sentence description of an idea. But the actual detailed contours of that belief, and the scientific arguments that led to its conclusion... who has those?
Climate isn't exactly easy to understand, even for an expert, and people have other priorities about things they care about.
For a Republican its mostly going to come down to trust in government, and its that ideology which drives the conclusion.
Anyway I don't think scientific shibboleths are all that valuable. I'd much rather people actually understand this stuff, but the truth is its asking too much. People live busy lives and not everyone can be a scientist.
[+] [-] rocgf|7 years ago|reply
Well, that's a bit how I feel now that I am reading The Knowledge Illusion: Why We Never Think Alone, by Philip Fernbach and Steven A. Sloman. It's a book around the topic of this post. Might be of interest to whoever finds this topic appealing.
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] carapace|7 years ago|reply
(FWIW, the rational belief to hold about GMOs is that they are a dangerous unproven experiment, and that's it's wildly irresponsible to apply genetic engineering willy-nilly without centuries of research. So... YMMV.)
[+] [-] hudon|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zyxzevn|7 years ago|reply
A lot of science is based on procedures and theories that automatically create certain results. As long people do not see this, it makes no sense comparing one belief-system versus another.
[+] [-] adamrezich|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xsmasher|7 years ago|reply
Add to that the amount of effort we expend to protect our egos and it's a wonder we ever arrive at correct decisions.
[+] [-] randcraw|7 years ago|reply
However I doubt any non-scientist could enumerate serious counter theories to the scientific status quo for evolution, GMOs, vaccines, or climate change -- other than citing probability and the burden of proof as insufficient for their adoption.
Personally I know little evidence that GMOs are toxic, so I side with non-toxic. Same for vaccines (now that Wakefield is wholly discredited). Same for counter-theories to evolution, though that's such a big topic, it'd be silly to endorse all or none of it, especially at the fringes. Evolution's chief strengths are its longevity and that there's no viable alternative theory for speciation. The existence of global warming AND man as its cause also suffers from a lack of viable alternative explanations. But is this scientific thinking, or just pragmatism? I disbelieve unless you can convince me otherwise. That's just common sense.
The OP doesn't seem to address "burden of proof" in judging scientific theories, except to combine the three bases under "justification". But I think the distinction between the three is essential, as is their visible presence, in a rational mind, since science-based belief must reflect the sum of thought that assesses evidence for, against, AND vs. alternative theories.
Ignoring any of these three puts one on the road to faith.
[+] [-] jeffdavis|7 years ago|reply
That's a contradiction in terms. Science is not democratic; wide agreement doesn't matter. A single rogue experiment or even observation can upend an entire way of understanding the world.
Compare the following two statements:
"We consulted with the scientific community. Sound science shows that vaccines save many lives, not just the ones being vaccinated. Decades of history have not turned up any significant risks. Therefore, we recommend local schools give vaccines to nearly all students. We've set up a fund to help administer this for schools that need it, and resources for homeschooled children."
Versus:
"Our favorite professors determined that vaccines are good, so we're going to inject every kid in the country, including yours. There's nothing you can do about it because you are not a Ph.D.".
With phrases like "scientific consensus", people hear more of the latter and less of the former. Especially since the phrase is used to essentially sign a blank check, where the original claim can be stretched far into the political realm by whoever is speaking.
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] scottlocklin|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] noetic_techy|7 years ago|reply
We should not be urging the point that "good scientists" are the one who don't question the consensus view.
I can give a good current example: Alzheimer's. Were now seeing the failure of the Amaloid Beta model in all clinical trails and preliminary evidence is starting to point to a herpes virus link.