
People are “consistently inconsistent” in reasoning about controversial topics - sohkamyung
https://digest.bps.org.uk/2018/11/13/people-are-consistently-inconsistent-in-how-they-reason-about-controversial-scientific-topics/
======
jimmytucson
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.

~~~
beat
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.

~~~
whiddershins
I think you are misusing the term scientific method here.

Scientific method revolves around hypothesis and tests.

Global warming science is based on something else entirely.

Edit: My wording seems to have provoked confusion as to my point. Apologies.
My point is that not all science utilizes the scientific method.

~~~
ForHackernews
So you don't consider astronomy a science?

~~~
fghtr
We have a lot of measurements in astronomy, which often proove or disprove our
hypotheses.

~~~
ForHackernews
The same is true in climate science.

Also, in case you haven't noticed, we're currently conducting a global scale
experiment (though without a control Earth) that is already showing results.

~~~
TangoTrotFox
In astronomy one aberrant observation is enough to completely revolutionize
the field or destroy a previously esteemed view. It's not based on melting pot
models and so a single mistake indicates something is wrong, perhaps
fundamentally wrong. Consider that decades before relativity was discovered we
knew very well that something was very broken because Mercury's expected orbit
was off by 1/100th of a degree per century.

By contrast, how would you propose falsifying a climate model? Each decade or
so we gain another chunk of data we can use to try to trial predictions of the
past and, to date, they've done quite abysmally except in the most broad sense
of a longterm gradual increase in temperatures. For instance from 2001 and
2010 the warming slowed to 0.11C per decade. [1] For the 17 years before then
was 0.17C. There was not a single model that predicted this and, in spite of a
number of after the fact hypotheses for that apparent decline, there is still
no decisive answer. In a science that was more heavily dependent upon testing,
this would be a ground-shaking event. But it's effect on climate science has
been relatively minimal.

[1] - [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/did-global-
warmin...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/did-global-warming-slow-
down-in-the-2000s-or-not/)

~~~
ForHackernews
I mean, all that really proves is that climatology is more complicated than
orbital mechanics.

~~~
User23
Formal reasoning, scientific or otherwise, is all about reducing a subject to
cognitive manageability. If the subject is too complicated to do that, then it
shouldn't be considered in the same class as subjects where that is possible.

~~~
beat
Or maybe we need to put more effort in, collect more data, build better
models, until we can understand it.

I could build a cabin using basic reasoning. I can't build a skyscraper with
just basic reasoning. Does that mean we shouldn't build skyscrapers? Or just
that we should leave their design to someone who really put the effort into
the "cognitive manageability" of it?

And really, when it gets down to it, a lot of the blatantly irrational
opposition to the very idea of global warming comes from "cognitive
manageability". For people who still think Sky Daddy made the world in six
days and cavemen rode dinosaurs, the idea that their car is wrecking the
atmosphere is beyond their "cognitive manageability", and it gets flatly
rejected.

When I see the people who believe in the scientific method mostly lined up on
one side of an issue, and people who reject the scientific method mostly lined
up on the other side, it biases me. Which was my original point, that so many
people have flipped out about.

~~~
TangoTrotFox
The person you're responding to is undoubtedly referring to the ability to
link cause with effect. As such "cognitive manageability" doesn't mean simple.
Relativity is far from simple, but it's cognitively manageable - as is the
fundamental science and engineering knowledge used when designing and
ultimately constructing skyscrapers.

To give an example of something that is not cognitively manageable, aside from
climate, consider the stock market. We can create a million correlations to
the stock market. And these correlations themselves all hold true. And there
is an immense, literally unlimited, amount of profit to be made if somebody
could combine these correlations into a way that could create meaningful
predictive value. There's no doubt that billions, if not trillions, of dollars
have been spent in pursuit of such. Yet prediction seems to remain impossible.
And that's in a field with a fraction of the variables of climate change.

------
untog
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.

~~~
beat
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.

~~~
tialaramex
I've always felt that ability to accept that I'm wrong was essential to being
any good at what I do ("write software") because of course the machine is
(almost without exception) right and so almost always when I do something and
it doesn't work that's because I got something wrong. I thought the variable
was named something else, I thought the content type defaults to XML, I
thought the input value is never zero, I thought that tiny change didn't need
me to re-run the unit tests...

I find that being constantly confronted by the fact that I'm wrong in what I
do for a living (and a hobby) sets me up to handle the same elsewhere in a
more healthy way.

Example: I really like the intuitive explanation of what's actually going on
with digital audio in Xiph's "Digital Show and Tell" and I often cite that
when other people don't seem to understand - but this isn't because it was
always obvious to me that's how it works. On the contrary, I find their
explanation compelling because it directly confronts a common misunderstanding
I had when I was younger. This misunderstanding was resolved by a friend & ex-
colleague showing me more or less what Monty shows in the video (but with
whatever gear he happened to have in his flat). Just like the video, he showed
me that what I had believed was defied by the observable facts, and voilà my
eyes were opened.

~~~
beat
I think you're hitting on part of the real pleasure of software development
here. Software is the _real world_. You can't negotiate, you can't beg, you
can't bully, you can't do any of those human interactions to make it work. If
the code doesn't work, the problem is almost certainly between the keyboard
and the chair. As such, it's very rewarding when we get it right. We're
displaying mastery over our environment.

The book _Shop Class as Soulcraft_ , by Matthew B. Crawford, goes into this
extensively. He's talking about more physical labor, but I find the substance
applies to software as well. (And although I love the book, you can save a lot
of time by googling his original essay, which is a much shorter and more
concise read.) Crawford argues that labor against physical reality, as opposed
to human interaction, drives both intellect and morality. It's a key to living
an ethical life.

~~~
wool_gather
I have a friend who's a metalworker, and I've always been intrigued by the
parallels between our trades (mine being programming).

I think my favorite correspondence, though, is that the material we work with
is the same material that our tools are made from. If my build scripts are
broken, I fix them _by writing code_. If his mill is broken, he fixes it by
_fabricating a replacement part_.*

\---

*Not always, of course, but you get the idea.

------
alexandercrohde
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).

~~~
Buldak
What is a controversial scientific view that you wouldn't characterize as
"conservative"? The article mentions aversion to GMO, does that count?

~~~
moate
Anti-vaxxers tend to be described as middle/upper-class liberals. GMO/Organic
trends do also tend to be similar groups

~~~
happytoexplain
I've never heard anybody say that anti-vaxxers are anything but mostly
conservative, and those opinions seem to match my own experiences, so this
comment is a genuine surprise for me. Is there really a belief in the opposite
in some circles?

~~~
moate
Contrary to my downvotes, yes. I don't really think of it as any specific
political thing, but there was a lot of emphasis, at least originally, put on
the hollywood left (Jenny McCarthy comes to mind) pushing an anti-vax agenda.

I'm not trying to make any kind of political point here. Someone asked >>What
is a controversial scientific view that you wouldn't characterize as
"conservative"?

It's a stereotype. Like all stereotypes, it's attempting to make a broad
proclamation of a large group of people, something that I generally try to
avoid. I don't even agree with this one being accurate, but it's out there in
the world.

[1][https://www.precisionvaccinations.com/childhood-
vaccination-...](https://www.precisionvaccinations.com/childhood-vaccination-
programs-should-be-exempt-political-bias)

~~~
dragonwriter
> the hollywood left (Jenny McCarthy comes to mind)

McCarthy is clearly connected to Hollywood, but left? Basically her entire
political activity is anti-vaxxers, and her brief foray into Presidential
politics involved first trying to get McCain to take a meeting with her on the
vaccine issue when he was running and, only when that failed, trying to do the
same with Obama (who also declined.) Not exactly what you'd expect of someone
committed to (or even inclined towards) the left.

(Which isn't to say there aren't Hollywood left anti-vaxxers, but McCarthy is
an odd choice as an example...)

> I'm not trying to make any kind of political point here. Someone asked
> >>What is a controversial scientific view that you wouldn't characterize as
> "conservative"?

Anti-GMO would be a better example than anti-vax.

------
wjnc
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.

~~~
nabla9
Conspiratorial arguments have little no relation to actual real world
conspiracies.

~~~
williamdclt
I don't think we can make a generalization here, there's all kinds of
conspiration theories and all kinds of conspiratorial arguments

~~~
tialaramex
The usual conspiracy theory invokes what is called a "Grand conspiracy" in
which other investigations, prior thinking on the same subject, and
contradicting evidence are all dismissed as part of the conspiracy. This is
laughably implausible because it involves this vast co-ordinated effort, often
for no discernible purpose except to prevent the theorist from being right
about something.

Actual secrets kept at some scale show the limits of what is possible, three
of the best examples are from World War Two, a period that's near enough for
us to have good records but distant enough that the secrets are long known to
us.

Ultra is the most obvious. "The ultra secret" was the fact that Allied
codebreakers could read some (though not all, at various points in the war)
Enigma and other encrypted messages sent via radio by the sprawling Axis
forces. Only a few dozen key people knew this secret, but of necessity
hundreds, perhaps around 1000 more had some limited insight because their work
was connected with the breaking of German messages (e.g. Hut workers at
Bletchley engaged in translating broken messages or finding "cribs"). You will
find people from the latter group who believed Ultra was protected well into
the late 20th century, but in fact it ceased even to be an official secret
after 29 years, and by the 1970s BBC documentary editors felt comfortable
assuming that a general audience would know about Ultra in the television
adaptation of Jones' autobiography "Most Secret War".

Second Manhattan. American development of a Nuclear Bomb could not of course
be kept secret once the weapon had been used. But until then it was adequately
guarded, there's no clear sign that Axis forces understood what the Americans
were attempting or where. But lots of people tacitly knew about Manhattan,
they just chose not to so anything until after the fact because "There's a
secret military R&D base near where I live" is very obviously not something a
patriotic person tells random strangers during a war...

Thirdly the Normandy invasion. Again after the fact this secret could not be
kept. Within hours of making landfall the German high command were aware that
this was not, as they had initially believed, a feint, and that all available
resources must be diverted to defend against it. But that was far too late.
Still in the weeks, and especially days, prior to the actual invasion, it will
have been apparent not only to the soldiers involved but to nearby civilians
that a massive naval landing was to be attempted. It just wasn't possible to
hide from the people of Southern England that there were shitloads of infantry
and boats making ready to depart in the next few days. Again the secret didn't
get out, for a very short time, because it will have been obvious to all who
knew that this wasn't something you should tell the enemy about.

Twenty Committee had successfully eliminated all German spies on the mainland
(either turning them, imprisoning them, or as necessary killing them) so the
only way for the secret to get out was for some idiot to tell the enemy
themselves.

So those help you judge rough scale for a conspiracy. If a hypothetical
conspiracy seems _harder_ to keep than, say, Manhattan, yet it seems to need
more people to keep the secret than, say, Normandy, and for them to keep it
longer than, say, Ultra, all because otherwise they might get sued, rather
than because Actual Nazis are going to invade their country, well that's
clearly crazy.

~~~
nabla9
Soviet intelligence knew about the Manhattan project in 1941, almost a year
before The Manhattan Engineer District was created. FBI fought constant battle
against Soviets infiltrators.

Georgii Flerov (Soviet physicist) figured on his own that the US had a nuclear
program in 1942 when he noticed that all publishing on the subject. And nobody
cited his studies about fission of uranium.

Manhattan project was so big that Germans could have figured it out from bits
and pieces even with their ineffective intelligence, but they never put all
the pieces in together. German intelligence officer came to Heisenberg at
least three times and asked if it was possible that Americans were building an
uranium bomb and he said no.

------
Wehrdo
> 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.

~~~
tom_
> the fact that half the population hold opinions that they would not change,
> given any amount of evidence, is actually somewhat terrifying

What would change your mind on this?

~~~
lostcolony
New data suggesting that a larger percentage would be willing to change their
mind given reasonable evidence?

I know you're trying to be snarky, but come on.

~~~
PavlovsCat
Changing one's mind about that would mean to no longer find that terrifying,
not it no longer being being the case.

------
tunesmith
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.

~~~
Invictus0
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.

~~~
tunesmith
That's fine, but that limits the parameters to what is healthy for the person
eating it. There's also the aspect to consider of changing the genome
affecting the larger environment. I understand the argument that this has been
done throughout history via selective breeding of plants, but it's more
extreme and in a more compressed timeframe with genetic modification -
meaning, less ability to anticipate and deal with the side effects.

~~~
Nasrudith
Well another thing is that the genes aren't created completely novel. They try
for selected traits when they transfer it and incidental mutations happen to
everything. The odds of something of major significance occurring are
extremely low low - given natural carcinogens and such that can and have
mutated plants including viruses past practices had potential to be way worse
for producing 'unexpected' results. There are technically risks to everything
but they start to fall into the category of 'technically possible but
downright absurd'.

Before targeted genetic modification there was atomic gardening. That was
literally irradiating seeds and choosing what they liked of the mutant
survivors - and a lot of seeds didn't germinate. Even doing something that
'randomizing' didn't cause those effects. As for health of food for people
eating it I think we're technically already centuries if not millennia too
late after repeatably breeding fruit for increased sweetness and lower fiber
content.

------
hamilyon2
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)

~~~
irq-1
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.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fbi-overstated-
fo...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fbi-overstated-forensic-
hair-matches-in-nearly-all-criminal-trials-for-
decades/2015/04/18/39c8d8c6-e515-11e4-b510-962fcfabc310_story.html)

~~~
waqf
> _How do people trust experts? That 's a fundamental problem._

Yes, this! I've often thought that a lot of hereditary socioeconomic
underperformance may be in some sense attributable to a self-reinforcing
information deficit where people don't figure out which experts to trust,
which life advice to take, which friends to make and keep. If your parents
don't start you right it must be a helluva job to figure it out later.

------
coldtea
> _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.

------
WhompingWindows
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.

~~~
cdoxsey
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.

------
rocgf
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.

------
carapace
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.)

------
hudon
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.

------
zyxzevn
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.

~~~
adamrezich
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?

------
xsmasher
People make decisions with their gut first, and then backfill their decision
with "logic." We should be called homo irrational, not homo sapiens.

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
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.

------
jeffdavis
"scientific consensus"

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.

------
scottlocklin
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.

------
noetic_techy
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.

------
cryoshon
interesting article with a lot of good tidbits. i found it particularly
interesting that the authors mention how a substantial subset of people merely
reiterate their position when prompted to explain their rationale for certain
beliefs.

the details regarding how for many people "reasoning" is about referencing the
person's perception of their own identity is also very valuable. i wouldn't
call this reasoning whatsoever, however. it's tribalism -- the opposite of
reasoning. this suggests that many people simply don't think about
controversial issues, and instead take cues from authorities of their identity
subtype. i assume there is literature which supports this idea.

there was one thing which i took issue with, however.

>sceptical attitudes toward the scientific consensus on genetically modified
foods (as safe) tended to involve fallacious reasoning of a conspiratorial
bent (such as “I am hesitant to believe there are NO concerns because the
multinational agricultural corporations such as Monsanto have profits as the
basis of their existence so any information they put out is suspect”)

this is a poor example given the recent debunking of monsanto's "glyphosate is
safe" fabrications. it isn't conspiratorial to suggest that X may not be Y
because the proponent of X benefits from and encourages people thinking Y.
that's basic critical thinking which recognizes that scientific results can be
skewed or falsified to support a narrative.

given the rest of the article, i'm confident that the author's use of this
example wasn't malicious... but there are many better examples.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
The article implies a scientific fallacy, which is that scientific knowledge
is binary - i.e. either science can say with certainty that something is true,
or it can say with equal certainty that something is false.

This is not how science works. There are decreasing circles of confidence out
from the relative certainty of a core curriculum - approximately an undergrad
degree in a hard science - to various research topics. At the edges are pure
research which is really just educated guessing. Far from being an invincible
march towards knowledge, science actually progresses by throwing grad students
at problems more or less at random. Some of them get lucky and find some key
insights that match reality.

Most don't.

Unfortunately there's plenty of evidence from history of scientific
reassurances being presented as certainties which were subsequently shown to
be wrong - sometimes dangerously so.

Add the toxic influence of corporate interest and the unarguable reality that
fact that some "evidence" is bought and paid for, and it becomes very hard to
accept research as the proof science would like it to be.

So it's actually rational to be skeptical of extraordinary claims.

E.g. GMOs. The extraordinary claim is that GMOs will end hunger. Obviously
only a total monster would oppose that.

In reality research into other farming techniques also increases yields, _and
in any case hunger is actually caused by bad politics_ , not lack of faith in
science.

Articles like these conflate the difference between science-as-pure-research
for the sake of knowledge, and science-as-policy-justification.

The standards for science-as-policy should be much higher than science-as-
research, because the consequences of warping truth for profit or power can be
so much more damaging.

------
jancsika
> climate change, vaccines, genetically modified (GMO) foods and evolution

On all four I happily defer to the experts in the scientific community who
study the relevant fields.

On none of these do I suspect a breakdown of science because the sample of
diverse specialists I have queried in each field reinforce the wider notion
that there is a clear scientific consensus. Furthermore, the conversations
I've had with specialists don't reveal any _lack of consensus_ , while in my
experience specialists usually seem quite happy to talk about scientific
controversies.

On these topics let's call it "appeal to diverse set of authorities." Throw me
a denier from any of the four topics and my only tactic will be to agree on a
method of randomly choosing one of the thousands of experts to whom I delegate
my opinion. The doubter must then either agree to argue with _that_ expert or
be forced to argue their position as the great conspiracy of the 21st century.

As long as you discuss these topics face-to-face, you'd be surprised how
quickly even some of the hard core deniers' positions shift.

Edit: clarification

------
ryanmarsh
Reason cannot give us ethics. Ethics is based upon subjective human
experience.

~~~
Nasrudith
Is it though? MAD is a trivial counter example. The reason why you shouldn't
nuke your rival nation even though they are communists/capitalists that you
despise with every fiber of your being is that you would get nuked in turn for
it.

Granted ethics has many differing frameworks itself.

------
yters
Imagine if the topics were existence of ether, phrenology, or racism, which
enjoyed the scientific consensus of their day. I wonder what would correlate
with disbelief in those controversial topics.

------
BeetleB
Often mentioned on HN, Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind
([https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-
Relig...](https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-
Religion/dp/0307455777)) is a worthy read. Briefly: Almost everyone comes up
with the conclusion _first_ , and _rationale_ later. The former drives the
latter. He gives examples from studies where people gave responses similar to
what this paper has: Very poor reasons, and occasionally nonsensical ones.

This is true for pretty much everyone - don't go and count yourself as the
exception. The more intelligent you are, the more refined your reasoning, but
there's evidence to show that intelligence will not lower the bias.
Counterarguments from others as intelligent or more intelligent will. One of
the curses of being more intelligent is that if you hold a biased view, you
usually need someone as smart as you to change your mind. The smarter you get,
the fewer people there are who can help remove your bias.

Some people are more objective than others, but often only in a limited domain
- not in their whole lives.

>However, 20 per cent of justifications were subjective and involved making a
reference to one’s cultural identity, personal experience.

The book also touches on this. In my personal experience, fact based reasoning
is rarer than this. There are many reasons people believe something.
Attempting to discern the Truth is usually in the minority. It is to be
expected that all the other reasons will be more prevalent - they simply have
more utility than merely gaining knowledge. It shouldn't surprise people that
factual reasoning is rare - it has little utility in most spheres of life.
Much less than social cohesion and tribalism does.

Consider the issue of intelligence, and its spread across various groups
(usually race and gender). It's very common to find a very well educated
person insist that everyone is born equally with the same mental/intelligence
potential, and differences exist merely in the extent they foster it. When
asked for their rationale/evidence, the answer is usually a variant of "I
choose to believe it" (usually for ideological or cultural reasons). I'm not
referring only to ordinary folks, but also to university academics, etc.

(I'm not saying that they are factually wrong - merely the reasons they
believe it are not based on any facts).

>whether they agreed with the scientific consensus on climate change,
vaccines, genetically modified (GMO) foods and evolution

Two of those items (vaccines and GMO foods) touch on a strongly cultural force
on purity. The book shows that a lot of people value purity (likely a genetic
trait). They associate food consumption not just with physical health, but
also mental/spiritual health. So they are quite sensitive to "unnatural" or
foreign agents going into their bodies.

