

The Science of Why We Don’t Believe Science - reyan
https://medium.com/mother-jones/adfa0d026a7e

======
glenra
An article with that title should have mentioned the possibility of an _error
cascade_. Occasionally - not often, but sometimes - the "consensus scientific
view" on a subject happens to be _wrong_. Wrong views can persist for quite a
while, and are more likely to do so when the subject is politically charged.
Preference falsification _even among scientists_ can lead them to a false
belief regarding what _their peers_ believe.

Here's a good discussion of error cascades in the context of climate change:
[http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1642](http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1642)

On the use of terms like 'deniers':

> _" Sound theory doesn’t have to be buttressed by demonizing its opponents;
> it demonstrates itself with predictive success."_

~~~
stirbot
I don't believe error cascade is happening in the field of climate science. A
multitude of accepted methodologies using scores of independent datasets from
various fields overwhelmingly produce results consistent with anthropogenic
global warming.

Additionally there are well funded groups who would love nothing more than to
uncover such an error cascade. Yet even a study funded by the same people who
run the Heartland Institute produced results consistent with AGW. Visit a
website like WattsUpWithThat to witness intelligent people trying their very
best to twist data or methods to fit their worldview. If something like this
is there to be found, it would have been found by now. The first order science
is truly simple. All that is being debated now is when and how severe the
effect will be. Sadly by the time we can scientifically confirm the 'Welcome
to AGW' sign, we may be 30 years inside the border.

Using the term denier does make convincing those people more difficult.
Politically, however, it may be useful to label this small but vocal group as
misinformed and stubborn, and get on with transitioning to a sustainable and
stable future.

~~~
glenra
> _A multitude of accepted methodologies using scores of independent datasets
> from various fields overwhelmingly produce results consistent with
> anthropogenic global warming._

Of course they do. That doesn't mean there's no error cascade surrounding our
understanding of what this means.

That past human activity has produced _some_ amount of warming is a pretty
uninteresting factoid. In fact, it's trivially true in that land-use patterns
alone can have a measurable impact on temperature - you don't even need a
theory relating to CO2 to establish that there has been _some_ "anthropogenic
global warming" (still less to find that data is merely "not inconsistent
with" this notion).

But when alarmists raise alarm, they have something very different in mind.
They believe that the warming rate and/or level is _unprecedented in human
history_ , that warming has been _a bad thing_ and is likely to produce _net
negative impacts_ in the near term. They tend to think it is sensible to talk
about "climate sensitivity" having a _single value_ and that this value is
_high_ \- at least 3 degrees per doubling. All of those are debatable points,
and it's wrong to assume scientists agree on them based on their agreement
with a much more vaguely defined "consensus view" that humans have caused some
undefined amount of warming.

> _If something like this is there to be found, it would have been found by
> now._

Several such things have been found. The post I linked to mentioned a few. The
ongoing efforts to hide or minimize the MWP (and thereby show recent
temperatures to be "unprecedented") is the usual example, perhaps best
documented on ClimateAudit.org .

------
caryfitzhugh
I think the bigger question this points to is the fact that _all_ human
perceptions are a mix of emotion and reason. As humans we seem to keep wanting
to live in black and white - in a place where we can name and label the cause
and effect of things.

As people who build software, we know how complexity explodes with each option
- and people are complex in millions of facets. Combine a few people together,
and you have intractable combinations of emotions and environmental factors.
At some point you have to give up on 'exact' and just go with 'directionally
correct'.

My wish would be that we could somehow find a way to loosen people's grip on
"this is the right way and I've proven it." Scientists and alternative
medicine, religious, the irreligious, etc. All seem to think that _their_
brain was able to do what trillions of people before could not. I don't mean
to say that there is no truth or 'right' in the universe, just that we are
such imperfect measurement tools that we need to walk it out a bit more
humbly.

It stands to reason that there's probably some good in the alternative
medicine movement - since the goal is for people to feel better and get
better. And apparently they are. And there's been good that comes from
traditional medicine as we've seen.

One commenter on here was lamenting their parents alignment to some
alternative medicine beliefs, stating "They believe this stuff even when it
contradicts itself, " How ironic, because I think if you look in to any field
there is a great deal of disagreement, and contradiction. You have people
refuting and arguing in medical and science journals, both sides being
convinced that they are 'correct'.

In many ways I think these behaviors are a symptom of a small-ish brain trying
to collect and hold all the complexity of the world - and just failing
spectacularly. Of course - we mix in some pride and arrogance, and we get what
we've got now. :(

~~~
protonfish
I think throwing the term "emotion" around closes discussion because it is
such an ambiguous term. A better model would be reason versus obedience - do
we believe our own senses or what we are told? Non-science is rooted in
charlatans and manipulative "leaders". We should be examining how people
choose who they believe to be authoritative. Then again, appeal to authority
is a known logical fallacy so any conclusion based on an "expert" is suspect.

~~~
gizmo686
Obedience refers to a specific type of emotion, loyalty/obligations.

The term I try to use when thinking (and explaining) my own thought process is
intuition. Often times when I try to issolate the source of my intution I come
up with something that would gennerally be considered emotion.

------
dsego
As my parents are getting older (nearing their 60s) it's being more difficult
to talk about some subjects. They started believing all sorts of ridiculous
stuff, even read Icke's books. It's hard to argue with someone who questions
reason itself. It's even more difficult knowing they're teachers, well
educated, liberal and open minded usually. They buy into the whole alternative
medicine, all sorts of natural cures for cancer, even more bogus explanations
about cancer causes. They believe this stuff even when it contradicts itself,
how can you believe that cancer comes from high acid levels in the body or
emotional conflicts, and then also be afraid of EM radiation? They believe in
the sincerity and good intentions of people who publish this alternative
material but they are extremely suspicious of "main-stream" science. Anyone
having similar experience?

~~~
run4yourlives
The irony in your comment is kicking me in the face through the computer
screen.

~~~
dsego
Please enlighten me.

~~~
run4yourlives
As per the article: You are not in anyway immune to the same processes that
you are complaining your parents are beholden to.

Your views and experiences are reinforcing your own beliefs that your parents
are not accepting the "facts" you know. Seeing one side as "unreasonable" to
logic while your view is "obvious" is exactly the type of behaviour the
article is attempting to underline.

The article also answers your question directly.

~~~
dsego
Maybe I should re-read the article, but I have a need to further explain my
line of thought. I myself have no need to hold strong beliefs. I tend to
accept overwhelming evidence from sources that seem credible and I will often
juggle opposing views, perhaps even never forming a firm opinion on a subject.
But I see a lot of people struggling with that, like never choosing a side or
forming a conclusion will kill them or something. It's the same when people
think never changing opinions (e.g. political) is a sign of good character.

Also, I am more interested in technology, science, nature etc. than other
people and their lives. It seems that my parents', but maybe even the majority
of "ordinary" folk's lives, revolves around what other people say, think or
do. So much so, they interpret everybody's actions as intentional and try to
explain a person's motives and will paint somebody's character based on some
trivial event. For example, if I forget to call them, they'll perhaps discuss
for hours how ungrateful and selfish I am and fabricate detailed explanations
for my actions, e.g. how maybe my girlfriend's mother is pulling me away from
them or something like that (I heard such stories from my brother).

In short, people try to find a (hidden) motive behind every action and think
there always has to be one. I think it is this way of thinking and functioning
that creates a fertile ground for conspiracy theorists.

------
run4yourlives
_Somewhat oversimplifying, you can think of hierarchical individualists as
akin to conservative Republicans, and egalitarian communitarians as liberal
Democrats._

Somewhat? That's like saying that black is a dark colour like navy blue and
white is more like royal blue.

Personally, I think the US would benefit by understanding just where in the
overall spectrum they fit politically and how limited their "typical" options
are.

Americans probably have the most limited options of any modern democracy on
the planet, and yet most people think they are so different.

------
carsongross
That's perhaps the most hilariously ironic first paragraph of an article I've
ever read.

