Aug 27 2007
The Science Hypothesis
The Science Hypothesis: A person unable to judge the scientific validity of two differing viewpoints will tend to agree with the group that:
A) is supported by an unrelated group that they trust (religion, political party, etc.)
B) has the largest number of members
C) is the loudest
D) is best able to express their side in simple terms
Choice A is never good. A religion or political party will often choose a position that best aligns with its views on other topics. For instance, it is necessary that Young Earth Creationists (YEC) argue that the theory of evolution is wrong. Even though the vast majority of evidence suggests that the age of the Earth is older than 6000 years, YECs must deny evolution because it necessarily shows the age of the Earth to be older than 6000 years. Therefore, anything which shows that the Earth is older than 6000 years is not true, according to the YEC.
Choice B seems like a good choice. Shouldn’t the group with the larger number of people be right? I cringe whenever I hear someone argue that anthropogenic climate change must be real because the number of scientists supporting it outnumbers those not supporting it. But this is clearly a logical fallacy: the appeal to popularity. Climate science, and science in general, should be about being right. If the best argument for anthropogenic climate change that can be articulated is that the majority of scientists believe it, but it cannot be explained why they believe it, there will be problems.
Choice C is a popular choice too. However, I don’t think that most people realize they are actually choosing this option when making a decision. However, I believe that every election in the United States since the invention of the television has been decided by whoever could shout the loudest - buy the most television advertisements. This option works well for those intest on disinformation campaigns.
Choice D is obviously the best of the four. The populace is not smart enough to grasp the finer points of science. As an example, I know I’m not qualified to make an educated decision on medical science. So in order for me to understand the science, it would have to be dumbed down to a pretty basic level. The same is true in climate science. How do you explain the greenhouse effect to someone with a high school education? When it’s commonly explained at a level that makes sense to people, holes can be poked in it by those willing to show that the greenhouse effect is wrong. To fully understand the greenhouse effect, a thorough understanding of radiation physics is needed. When a dumbed-down theory has holes poked in it, it seems that the side doing the poking is on firmer scientific ground - which may or may not be true.
Are there other ways that people make decisions about science? Probably.
Is there a better way for scientists to communicate science? Probably.
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...Related Posts:
4 Responses to “The Science Hypothesis”
To reduce spam, comments are automatically closed 30 days after the last comment. If you would like to comment on any closed thread, please use the contact form at the top of this page.
I reply here:
http://tinyurl.com/278bag
or
http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2007/08/whom-to-trust.html
I think for people with limited time and interest, “the majority of experts” is a reasonable approach. It should be understood, that this is not a firm assurance.
Once someone is interested, is debating, than this rationale is inadequate. You have to give your opponent the courtesy of getting down to brass tacks. Not acting like you have Harry Potter’s stick up your ass. Scratch that. I mean acting like Gavin or Mike Mann.
That is unless the opponents are morons like 95% of the skeptics (but NOT steve McI). Of course on the warmer side, you have camp followers like Lynn Vincenthaven. I can think of only one thing useful from such.
Stating the obvious, but… large negative risks cannot be avoided. Decision and action here cannot be avoided. ‘Not cutting’ co2 emissions has risks equivalent to ‘cutting co2′. ‘Inaction’ is an action. ‘Postponing the decision’ is deciding to continue the emissions scenario. Therefore every citizen needs to decide for their own sake as best they are able, and to vote likewise.
Some will study and understand the science.
An uninformed citizen without the time/energy/talents/inclination may nevertheless judge that thousands of climate scientists with PhDs, through decades of research, with the full agreement of practically every relevant scientific society worldwide along with governments of left, right, and center, from dictatorships to democracies, are highly unlikely to prove incorrect over… unqualified shills for fossil-fuel corps.
An uninformed citizen may then vote to curb emissions.
In the same way if I had a problem with my gas boiler, I would trust the opinion of a plumber, not a Steve Milloy. Microbiology? A microbiologist. Malaria? A malariologist. Experts exist partly to give the lay people ‘the truth’. ‘Truth’ in this instance consists of or is usually based on the consensus opinion. That the consensus shifts merely reflects the fact that our models update as our knowledge improves, that ‘truth’ is contingent and a social construct, and that even our most fundamental laws of physics are subject to revision.
Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy in the sense that it implies the opinion of an entity determines an absolute truth. Like, say, a holy book.
Trusting the consensus of experts, not so much.
So I would submit that B) is the most reasonable for an uneducated person.
And on that basis, the public seem quite reasonable.
A) is good, assuming you are rational enough to trust organizations with competence in the right area. For a scientific question you check what reputable scientific organizations have to say, not what your local church believes. On the other hand, if you have a religious question going to your church makes sense.
B) is also good, assuming you only count people with expert knowledge. The majority isn’t always right, but it’s the way to bet. The link about appeal to popularity contains a fallacy itself. It gives the example “1+1=3″ where it is assumed that all readers will already know that this is wrong, but relying on experts only makes sense in cases where you *don’t* know the answer and don’t have the time/knowledge to find it for yourself.
C) Is popular, but clearly very bad.
D) Is also very bad since the more honest the person making the explanation is the more caveats he tend to include and the more uncertain and muddled he will sound. A dishonest demagogue has a much easier time sounding as if he knows what he is talking about by ignoring all inconvenient facts.