
Skeptics discount science by casting doubts on scientist expertise - alexandros
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/09/skeptics-discount-science-by-casting-doubts-on-scientist-expertise.ars
======
ellyagg
This is not the first Ars Technica article I've seen that erroneously compares
the "controversy" surrounding evolution with the controversy surrounding
global warming. Evolution is a binary fact. It's either true or not and, as
rational, informed people know, it's true.

On the other hand, anthropogenic global warming is a matter of degree.
Scientists largely agree that there has been some AGW (although it's not
settled to nearly the confidence of evolution). What people object to is the
constant bombardment with doomsday scenarios. The magnitude and implications
of AGW are NOT settled and yet it's often claimed that hugely invasive and
costly public policy initiatives must be enacted to combat worst case
outcomes. Scientists and activists who carry the science further than its legs
undermine their credibility and make it tough to discuss the issues fairly.
It's pretty sneaky to suggest that if you don't toe the popular line on AGW,
you're probably a Creationist.

~~~
swah
I never thought about evolution and creationism as mutually exclusive.

~~~
ewanmcteagle
This is because you are using your intuitive definition of creationism and not
the one that has been historically used in this argument.

------
acqq
It's obvious why the public is divided: if you feed them (through the media)
with the "debates" and "disputes" where "each side has to be represented"
you're sending a signal: "there's 50% chance of X and 50% chance of not X."
Average that then across the population and don't be surprised that you'll
have almost 50% of people believing X and 50% of people believing not X.

If any media would make fair representation, they'd have to host for example
1000 scientists for one side and one (where they'd also have to constantly
note that that one is typically not qualified in the area he disputes) for
another (or even 10K scientists for one side and one for another etc.) That
wouldn't make nice "debates" to sell advertising minutes or brag about the
number of the viewers!

When you argue alone with the fool most won't see the difference.

Note also that the better title would be "The Unqualified Skeptics..."

~~~
lotharbot
I think there's a related phenomenon: we have "debates" and "disputes" over
the expected effects of economic policies, social policies, political
policies, etc. and then we get to see those policies in action. Neither major
US political party seems to do better than 50/50 overall, despite having
"expert" opinion from professional economists, social scientists, and so on.
The media providing coverage of the debates, the arguments, and the policies
don't generally do a good job of picking out the best analysis; their track
record is far worse than 50/50. But viewers keep watching!

Then the same politicians and the same media trot out "scientists" in support
of various measures. Sometimes the scientists are legit, and sometimes they're
cranks. Sometimes the scientists are legit, but are talking about policy
preferences rather than science. And most of the time, the politician or media
member giving the "scientist" the podium doesn't have the expertise necessary
to understand if the person is legit or totally nuts. And all of this gets
ratings, so the media keeps it coming.

Throw in a little confirmation bias -- where people remember their side's
successes and the other side's failures, and therefore trust of their side's
experts and distrust of the other side's experts -- and you have a recipe for
divided opinion even where there shouldn't be.

~~~
shasta
> Neither major US political party seems to do better than 50/50 overall

I'm not sure what that even means or how you could measure it. Most political
policies don't have tangible win/lose results. There are not often going to be
actions that make everything peachy. Usually choices have pros and cons, and
it's easier to get the public to notice the cons than it is to get them to
evaluate the trade offs involved. Also, if the cons don't materialize within
two years, the public will probably not connect the dots.

So watch some cable news, form your half-ass opinion and go vote.

~~~
lotharbot
> Most political policies don't have tangible win/lose results.

No -- but occasionally politicians will state a particular tangible, directly
measureable result they're expecting a policy to produce (either pro or con).
They seem to be wrong as often as they're right, across the board.

Ideally, we'd have a policy suggestion, true experts would give us a clear
understanding of the tradeoffs involved and the actual effects of the policy,
and we could evaluate them and make sensible decisions. What we actually get
are policy suggestions, statements from both sides' hand-picked "experts"
declaring fictional effects of the policy, we vote for whatever sounds the
best to us, and half the time the end result is totally different from what we
thought we were voting for. And pretty much all the time, both sides cherry-
pick statistics that don't really measure what they say they're measuring in
order to prove that they were right all along.

And then we wonder why people are skeptical...

------
frgbhnmnjh
Odd though that people only seem to doubt the evidence when they want to do
something!

Don't want to give up smoking, drinking, sugar, driving an SUV or running the
AC 24*7 ? Then convince yourself that the scientist are divided on the health
benefits/global warming.

I've yet to see somebody say that scientists are divided on general relativity
and therefore I don't need to worry about falling off this cliff.

~~~
btilly
_Odd though that people only seem to doubt the evidence when they want to do
something!_

Creationists doubt the evidence for evolution, but what do they want to do?
Similarly the Holocaust "deniers". (Most don't actually deny the Holocaust,
they dispute the scale.)

 _I've yet to see somebody say that scientists are divided on general
relativity and therefore I don't need to worry about falling off this cliff._

I have known people who denied Einstein's theory of special relativity. They
don't seem to want anything other than to argue about it. In fact annoyance
over that was why I stopped reading James P. Hogan. (This was before he
expressed his more controversial views.)

There are also a number of scientists who have doubted general relativity, and
they are generally credited with moving the discussion forward by providing
something concrete to test. GR has done well under those tests, but it was
important to have reasonable alternatives presented. (It is worth noting that
2 of the 3 classical tests of GR match the first order predictions of any
theory that reconciles gravity with special relativity, and gravitational
redshift falls out of quantum mechanics. So the classical tests didn't
actually test the theory very well.)

Nobody sane doubts the reality of gravity though. People who are prone to
walking off cliffs because they think gravity is not real generally end up
dead or institutionalized for good reason.

~~~
codeflo
> Creationists doubt the evidence for evolution, but what do they want to do?

Teach Christian mythology in science classes.

~~~
frgbhnmnjh
Since it's all old testament stuff, they are teaching Muslim mythology as much
as Christian - but really teaching Jewish mythology !

Has anyone told them?

------
orblivion
Scientists are still people, funded by money that comes from other people. I
don't think they should be revered. I don't think that there should ever be a
"come on, this is what we believe now, get with the program". I'm always up
for skepticism. I don't like this "what's wrong with these people that they're
not listening to us" attitude.

EDIT: It's not a bad article, but it ignores the possibility that people doubt
the particular scientists for legitimate reasons.

~~~
jbooth
<http://xkcd.com/675/>

~~~
orblivion
Sure, people shouldn't pretend to be scientists either. This is just about the
fact that people have the right to raise objections outside of the realm of
science. "Are these scientists paid by politicians or corporations?" "Are
these scientists a little too sure of themselves on this theory to be
dictating our lives just yet?"

------
pella
" .. The Semmelweis reflex or "Semmelweis effect" is a metaphor for the
reflex-like rejection of new knowledge because it contradicts entrenched
norms, beliefs or paradigms. It refers to Ignaz Semmelweis, who discovered
that childbed fever mortality rates could be reduced ten-fold if doctors would
wash their hands (we would now say disinfect) with a chlorine solution. His
hand-washing suggestions were rejected by his contemporaries."

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semmelweis_reflex>

~~~
billswift
I just read Atul Gawande's _Better_ where there is a good discussion of
Semmelweis, Apparently, Semmelweis was an extremely obnoxious nutjob, which is
why he was ignored. When Lister started a lower profile, less obnoxious,
program to do basically the same thing a few years later, he was much more
successful.

------
isleyaardvark
_Ninety-seven percent of the members of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science accept the evidence for evolution..._

I'm surprised it wasn't higher.

------
viggity
Science is a testable, reproducible hypothesis. Computer models (the
foundation for AGW) never have been and never will be science.

------
m3mb3r
More info about the survey here: <http://norvig.com/oreskes.html>

