Slashdot Mirror
The "Scientific Impotence" Excuse
chichilalescu writes "I've had the feeling for a long time that people refuse to listen to scientists. The following is from an article on Ars Technica: 'It's hardly a secret that large segments of the population choose not to accept scientific data because it conflicts with their predefined beliefs: economic, political, religious, or otherwise. But many studies have indicated that these same people aren't happy with viewing themselves as anti-science, which can create a state of cognitive dissonance. That has left psychologists pondering the methods that these people use to rationalize the conflict. A study published in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology [abstract here] takes a look at one of these methods, which the authors term "scientific impotence" — the decision that science can't actually address the issue at hand properly.' The study found that 'regardless of whether the information presented confirmed or contradicted [the subjects'] existing beliefs, all of them came away from the reading with their beliefs strengthened."
This is one reason I'm so very suspicious of certain kinds of social science. It's so very easy to rationalize predetermined conclusions when it's not easy to run experiments after the theory has been created.
Evolutionary biology, for example, has a just so story for explaining why our society is the way it is as far as relations between men and women. But I think it's all quite suspiciously convenient.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
"RTFA" means Read The Fucking Article, not Replicate
Ironically, you apparently DO need a psychology degree to understand that believing you DON'T need a psychology degree to discuss the psychology of beliefs is in itself an irrational (though not necessarily untrue) belief.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Another typical geek post: You're completely correct, yet you've managed to minimize the actual real-world, longstanding phenomenon of using a a very particular type of non-thinking and elevating it massively above other forms of non-thinking. You're all theory and no impact.
Kinda like what TFA talks about.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
As for myself, it's not that I believe that science cannot address the issue (though sometimes I do believe that is the case), but that I don't trust the experimentation method or the impetus behind the experiment. Far too often the "science" in question has an agenda behind it - political, business, social or whatever.
For example, one can find scientific studies which indicate that high fructose corn syrup is unhealthy. There are also studies which will indicate that there is nothing at all wrong with high fructose corn syrup. Both studies (supposedly) use scientific methods to arrive at their conclusions. Therefore, ultimately, a person is left to his own beliefs to decide which study (if any) is correct.
Proverbs 21:19
In that case, liberalism should be considered a religion as well.
and yes, I am an atheist, I just don't feel the need to ram it down people's throats, that would make me part of the problem
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
As long as it follows its own method, an approach that is often neglected.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
Science doesn't speak with one voice on pretty much anything. Ask a group of paleontologists what happened to the Neanderthals or the Dinosaurs. Then run out, lock the door and come back two days later to let the survivor out.
Even when science does speak with one voice, it takes years for consensus to filter down because people who are not exposed to the debate (non-scientists) will continue to support things which have been proven wrong. Why? Well, because that's what they heard, and your new theory probably doesn't have a laundry list of "Here's how all previous theories were proven wrong" attached to it. You're telling people that the Celtics won the championship when they never found out that the Lakers had been eliminated in the second round. I can still pull up scientific articles that contain conjectures that are known to be wrong - yet they don't have that information about their legacy attached to them, so maybe I just assume that that's the "best" science.
"Science" is also known to be highly influenced by money. Scientists, like artists, need financial backing. The works they produce are sometimes tainted by that. Instead of doing pure, unbiased research, they are simply out with a mission from a master with an axe to grind on some issue.
Long story short: Science is done by people. And you can't trust people.
Except science isn't an ideology.
of course it is. how do you think scientists got past the mind blowing inconsistencies quantum mechanics requires us to grasp. There is still no real understanding of why things are that way, just a slightly better set of mathematical tools to describe it. It was a crisis of scientific faith. The average physicist would have had to make a monumental leap of faith to go from impenetrable paradox to reasonable understanding. It would have been very easy to thrown up one's hands and say that science has reached its limits, or worse, that science has been lying to us about what the world is really like. And many did. But those with the most faith in science's nature as an explanatory tool simply walked through the darkness in search of the light they knew was there.
If that's not faith in action, i don't know what is...
And furthermore, since even those who discovered it really didn't know what it meant, it was, from a psychological point of view, exactly like a prophet or priest communicating a revelation. those who heard the word had the choice of taking on faith, choosing not to believe (at ones own societal peril), or holding out for something one can get one's mind around more easily. Many declared it mathematical conjuring, others claimed they understood but didn't, and still more were more reasonably skeptical and asked for a more detailed explanation. But most simply accepted it as a newly discovered mystery to be solved, and set out with the faith and drive of a missionary on a quest to conquer the darkness with lasers and particle accelerators.
Science is basically an extension of religion. Both are the result of a quest for truth, but science is more demanding of the discoverers. the Buddha is a "household name" because what he gave people an extremely useful set of tools by which to make life more tolerable. Jesus is revered not because he conquered anything, but because he offered common sense rules for peaceful co-existence. They were among the greatest thinkers ever to walk the planet. You may say that their followers have distorted and abused the wisdom they shared for nefarious means, and you'd be right. But has science faired any better? Nukes? Bioweapons? Eavesdropping? Mind controlling drugs? Etc, etc.
Remember, people in biblical times accused "pagans" superstitious and backward. If they would only give up their old ways and adopt the new wisdom, everyone would be better off...
When Science says" According to our measurements and our current understanding of the process, the world seems to be warming and we seem to be responsible. And BTW, here is all of our data, how we measured it, modified it and interpreted it."
That is science.
When Science says "The world is warming and we are responsible, so you have to pay more taxes, reduce your consumption (unless you are really rich, like Al Gore or are part of the Government). Also, don't ask us how we determined this because we can't give you the data (Can't be bothered, we lost it, you wouldn't understand it, you might find something wrong with it). So just accept it and if you question us, you are a nut, a kook, and are morally equivalent to Nazi's who claim the Holocaust never took place."
Well, that may not be a religion, but it sure as hell is not Science.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Are you this up in arms when it comes to attempting to use religion as a hammer to force another ideology upon a skeptical populace that will result in worsened economic conditions and reduced freedoms for that populace?
Not trolling; I'm genuinely curious.
--Jeremy
Who is "up in arms" here?
I don't think anything should be *forced* on the populace in general against their will, whether the perceived results by those proposing it might be overall good or bad. That is for the populace as a group to decide, both the thing in question and whether the result is "good" or "bad".
I took no sides as to what/which science/scientists or which ideologies or political viewpoints. I simply noted that there exists ideologically & politically driven science and scientists, for which I was speedily modded as "Troll".
Is this no longer true? Has basic human nature been fundamentally & massively changed in the last few days and I didn't get the memo?
I wasn't aware that the simple existence of scientists and scientific theories that are politically/ideologically driven was in debate.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Then tell those "scientists" to stop going to political conferences, stay off the tv, newspapers and radio's and tell them to stop spreading their alarmist views.
Because it certainly isn't the "deniers" as you guys call them (not you personally, I have no idea if you do) that are spreading this doom and gloom end of days bullshit.
Because the scientific papers dont show that its the end of the world. Hell, not one of them is even certain as they are all based on bs computer models.
There is no actual measured data supporting their predictions.
You're talking about "research and facts", so let's see what you've got to support your position. Otherwise, your troll moderation was wholly deserved.
There's plenty of research and facts that don't jive with the current AGW theories. There are enough that some at the CRU, according to their own emails, made efforts to prevent their publication in peer-reviewed journals by attempts to redefine what qualified as a peer-reviewed journal, as well as using the threat of doing so to dissuade journals. A quick Google search will return plenty of credible scientists and science that disagrees in whole or in part with current AGW theories. If you want it, go get it yourself. I'm not going to do your work for you.
It's funny how any scientists, even those with decades-long track records of solid science, who dare criticize the research in any way are suddenly redefined as "irrelevant", "unqualified", "biased", and their research, even if sound, is ignored at best and suppressed at worst. That's not the way science uses to validate the correctness of a scientific theory. That IS the way, however, that propagandists use to suppress dissent and debate.
There's also the inconvenient fact that even if we did away with cars, coal power, most everything that produces CO2 that we take for granted that sustains our modern society, the total global change in temperature and rate of rise would be insignificant compared to projected increases. Other countries such as India and China won't agree to anything that hurts their continued economic expansion, so the US going to pre-industrial levels still wouldn't result in even a meaningful slowing in global temperature increase.
The more data I see on solar activity correlated with temperature changes & CO2 levels, the more I'm convinced that solar activity owns the lions' share of responsibility for global surface temperature changes, particularly since a timeline shows the CO2 levels rose after the increases in temperature and solar activity, which tended to track together well.
With all the very credible (read: credible under standards accepted for most any other scientific topic of research) contrary data and research out there, calling things "case closed" on AGW EITHER WAY is illogical.
It's not that I refuse to accept that AGW is possible, only that the science hasn't proved it sufficiently to warrant the enormous costs in lost lives, drastic reductions in living standards, wealth, individual freedoms, and continued technological advancement.
I'm sorry, but causing the suffering of untold millions, even billions, worldwide by implementing the carbon-reduction targets proposed domestically and internationally (not to mention the wealth taken from economies by the carbon trading exchange(s), speculators, brokers, trading houses, etc that, by coincidence, have heavy ties to those pushing carbon trading) then you'd better have damn good, easily verifiable proof that it's absolutely vital and not another power and wealth grab based on bad science.
We haven't seen that yet.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
The fact that their are pushing for carbon taxes or cap and trade shows me that something is wrong, yes.
Those 2 things are the worse possible solutions to a non problem or even a problem if there was one.
Its basically a tax on EVERYTHING.
Do you honestly think companies care about this? They'll pass on costs to us. And we'll just go on consuming because thats what they push us to do.
I am all for renewable energy, but not at any cost. I dont think we are nearing the end of days, so I think it is blatantly irresponsible to turn our economy and way of life upside down to find solutions to a problem that isnt really a problem.
Lets switch when we actually have the technology to switch.
In the meantime, Americans need to switch to nuclear, as its the only green solution available to you right now which has the capacity to replace coal as a base for your energy demands.
Wind and solar are good supplements, but just arent there yet.
That said, my original point has little to do with any particular problem in science, but rather talks about the more general philosophical problem of trusting the scientific method to tell us absolutely everything about everything. It is, IMHO, inherently limited because it relies on human observations. We are not omnicient and therefore by definition miss things because of our limited faculties. To go forward with traditional scientific experiments knowing these limitations is to act with some degree of faith that they will tell us something useful.